1921-04-08

Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: Mr. Speaker, since answering the question yesterday asked by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), I have received from the Vice-President of the Canadian National Railways a further memorandum giving additionnal information, and I should like to have this placed on Hansard to complete the answer already given. Therefore I would ask the consent of the House for that purpose.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It would be the right of the hon. minister when questions were called to have this additional answer to the question submitted placed on the Table and subsequently printed in Hansard; but I can see it would be of great advantage to have it printed in Hansard of to-day rather than wait until questions are called on Monday. I therefore trust that under the circumstances the House will offer no objection to the supplementary answer being incorporated in to-day's Hansard. Is it the pleasure of the House that this shall be done?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
[Note.-The statements referred to above are printed as an appendix to this day's issue of Debates. Editor.]



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the following resolution:
That a Select Standing Committee on National Railways and Shipping be appointed for the present session, and be instructed to inquire into the following questions:-
(1)	What information as to operation of Canadian National Railways and Shipping as conducted by the Board of Directors and Management should, in the public interest, be brought down in Parliament on Question, Motion for Production of Papers, or otherwise.
(2)	When, by what method, and under what conditions, if any, should such information be given, regard being had for the necessity of securing to Parliament and the public all facts requisite for the determination of policy (including finance), and to the Board of Directors the best possible conditions and efficiency of management.
(3)	What system of auditing should be adopted, and what extent of detail should be given in the Annual Report.
(4)	Whether and for what perposes the said committee should be continued, and that for the above purposes and for such other purposes as the committee deem in the public interest there be referred to said Committee the Annual Report of the Board of Directors and that the said committee have power to examine witnesses under oath, to send for papers, persons, and records, and to report from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the resolution has been under debate in the House fully on one occasion and partially on another; consequently there is little necessary for me to add by way of explanation in moving the resolution. The committee that I propose is designed to perform, if it can, a very difficult but a very necessary task, and I think it well that the appointment should be made at the earliest possible date-to-day if it be the will of the House-so that the committee may have the most ample opportunity to call witnesses, make all necessary investigations, secure the best opinion available, and report.
When the matter was first under discussion some ten days ago on the motion of the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in amendment to Supply, I intimated that I felt the House might well consider the appointment of such a select committee as was already foreshadowed in the motion of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and that there should be committed to it, first, the duty of finding and reporting upon the best method of bringing into this House the necessary information as to the National railways, the time and the conditions, and whether or not there might be any information that, for a time at least, should not be brought down. On April 5, when the hon. member for Halifax moved his motion, I took occasion in the debate more specifically to set out what I thought might be the duties of the committee. At page 1660 I used these words:
I have merely outlined in brief what has occurred to me as proper subjects for the deliberation of the committee. I am not going to say that nothing else could be submitted to them. It might be conceivable that the general question of the devolution of responsibility within the managing body might also come up for consideration there. I have no comment to offer upon that suggestion. It can be reviewed when the motion that I shall give notice of to-night comes up for discussion.
And I commented on the four topics that I had then suggested. Later in the debate when I gave the notice I said:

During the course of the discussion with regard to the Canadian National Railways, I promised that I would give notice to-night of a motion for the appointment of a committee. I am prepared to hand the motion in, in the regular way, but as in that case hon. members would have no -chan-ce to peruse it, I think it would be fairer, that I should read it to-night. In that connection I wish to say that the subjects here outlined are not given finally and conclusively as the subject to be under the review of the committee. In the course of my remarks, indeed, I said that such was not the case.
Consequently the attitude of the Government throughout has consistently been to give Parliament the fullest right of review as to what in the public interest can well be taken in charge by this committee for the purposes of report. In view of comment that had been made to the effect that the annual report would not be brought down, at least for all purposes-although I had stated previously that it would be laid before the committee and would be used for all purposes that the committee had to serve -it will be observed that by incorporating in the motion an additional purpose the committee gets the annual report for that purpose as well, which virtually puts it in the power of the committee to use it for any purpose it desires.
Now, I have noted somewhere that comment was made, to the effect that the duties, as indicated in this resolution, are purely academical. I am afraid that I am not able to understand the applicability of that adjective to these duties. The House has discussed many times, not only this session but in previous sessions, the very question that is embodied in the first charge to the committee. That question is about as far from the academic and is about as intensely and markedly practical as any question possibly could be- what actual information as to operation of Canadian National Railways and shipping as conducted by the board of directors and management should in the public interest be brought down in Parliament on question, motion for production of papers, or otherwise. That is the first question, and really it is very difficult to understand how anyone who reads it can have the faintest idea that it is academical. It is a question as to just what facts relating to operation may be brought down. The Government has always taken the view that this at least must be said: the actual operating data, the facts connected therewith, the managing of the road, must not, until a certain time passes- at least during the period of operation to which they apply and until the annual report covering them appears-must not be producible

to the competitor of the road, to the public, to competing tenderers, and all others. As respects these business facts of operation, this corporation must have the same rights as any other, must have the same opportunities as any other, to make a success of its system. In the judgment of the Government, that is vital; it is essential; without it there is no use going on. If these are to be destroyed, then the time has come to turn our backs upon government operation of a system of the magnitude of ours. Any attempt to expose and place the management in the position that has been sought in this House is, whether so intended or not, an attempt to paralyze government operation of railways. Consequently it is an intensely practical question as to what information can be given without prejudicing 'the management of the system, without prejudicing its efficiency; when it can be given, and under what conditions, if any, and by what method-possibly through the committee itself. That covers the first two duties as outlined in the resolution.
The third reference entrusts to the committee the obligation of looking into the question whether we can have a better audit system. It has been suggested-as I recall it, chiefly by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier)-that some audit system might be evolved under which there would be an ultimate if not an immediate responsibility on the part of the Auditor General. I know of practical objections that have been raised to this. I do not feel myself competent thoroughly to discuss it; I would like to hear evidence upon it. It will be for the committee to hear such evidence as it may desire and to come to a conclusion thereon. The Board of Management has in the past adopted in its annual report the principle of following the same lines and adopting the same system and going into the same detail as in the case with the Canadian Pacific in disclosing its operating facts, its business year to its shareholders. It might be that under a Government system operated by a board of directors a fuller annual report should be necessary and desirable. That question also can be reviewed by the committee and if this motion passes the House expresses its desire that the committee should make a recommendation thereon.
Lastly, the committee will inquire and will report-I have no doubt that after it gets the evidence and the facts necessary to enable it to report on the first three it will need little more as to the last-as to what functions a standing committee on

national railways and shipping should have. It might come to the conclusion that the work could be done by the regular railway committee of this House. On the other hand, it might not come to that conclusion; it might think that a closer supervision could be exercised by a select standing committee charged with this duty and this duty alone. That is for the committee to decide. I am sure hon. members will agree if they think the matter out in a business way that the House and the Government, after they have had the advantage of a report from a careful and thorough committee, will be in a much better position to decide these questions which go to the very root of the success of the management of this system.
The motion also states that the committee shall have before it the annual report and it will be for the committee to decide what investigation they desire to make based on that annual report. The committee is left to decide for itself, what can be done or how it can be done without impairing the rights of the management in connection with the operation itself. It is conceivable that the committee might, without achieving any end in the public interest, seriously embarrass the management of the road. It could were it so disposed, but it is inconceivable that unless commissioned to do so it would be so disposed.
Now, I need not add again what I have said often, that no committee ever appointed by this House has been entrusted with more important, and, I doubt not, more difficult duties than those which are being assigned to this one; certainly no more practical duties were ever assigned to any committee. I say again that there might be some other functions performed by the committee, but I think there is about enough here to occupy its time during the rest of the session-for a good part of the rest of the session, anyway.
When I was speaking on this subject last Tuesday I mentioned that the suggestion had come that the committee might inquire into the question whether any improvement in the scheme of management could be made, and report to the House thereon. The suggestion came that possibly some board might take the place of shareholders in an ordinary company. I do not know that that is practicable; I am inclined to think it is not. But, if the House is of the view that any useful object could be served by adding that as one of the functions of the committee, namely, inquiry and report-and the inquiry the committee makes on the other subjects would help it to report, perhaps, without any further investigation-as to whether there could be any improvement in the general plan or scheme of management, it could be added to the duties of the committee. I need not suggest to the House that it would be wholly improper to commit to a committee the duty of examining into the efficiency of an official. If we adopt that course we may give up hope of ever getting officials who will be big enough or able enough to manage a system of anything like the magnitude of the Canadian National Railways. The responsibility for the appointment of the directorate must rest with the Government and the Government alone, and we must not expose officials of the road acting under the directors to review without specific cause by any other body. If we do, we may abandon hope of ever having either officials or directors fit for their duties.
I need scarcely add that the task of managing a system of this magnitude, surrounded by the difficulties that inevitably surround government management, is in itself none too inviting; it is easy for hon. members to believe that the task of securing just the man you may want in each post is easier than it really is. Therefore I say to the House in all seriousness, having had some acquaintance with the problem for many years, that we must take care to be fair to those who are entrusted with this great duty. We must take care that they are placed in a position that will enable them to perform their task to the best of their ability. We must take care that we do not prejudice the interests of the country by pursuing a course in this House, or in a committee of this House, that does injustice either to the system or to the management.
I have again presented to the House, in very brief form, my reasons for moving for the appointment of this committee. The reasons for it have been argued at very considerable length by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). He, however, did not have any definite ideas as to just what the committee should do. I do not think it would be the part of wisdom to place in the statement of the duties of the committee any omnibus clause, making it their task to do almost anything that they take it into their heads to do. If you do that, you simply turn them out into a wilderness, and you are not going to get any results at all. That has not been the

custom of this Parliament. One cannot emphasize too strongly the wisdom of making concrete, practical, and definite, the duties of any committee of this House. If you do so, then you will secure concrete, practical, and definite results; but if your commitment in the first place is vague, open, and aimless, then you are likely after you get your report, to find yourselves where you began, or you may get no report at all. Consequently, I think, with the suggestion that the duties as embodied in the motion are open to amendment if any practical, concrete amendments can, in the judgment of the House, be made with advantage, it would be wise to take care that, whatever may be the purpose, we do not add terms that are likely to destroy altogether the usefulness of the committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) proceeds, I deem it my duty to draw the attention of the House to the circumstance that a strict application of the rule would leave only a fragment of this motion debatable, because the House will bear in mind that one portion of it was debated by the leader of the Opposition, on going into Supply, on a motion for the production of papers appertaining to the railways. It will be borne in mind that, on a subsequent motion of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), this subject was widely debated, and as the House is aware, there is a rule that the same subject may not be debated twice in the same session.
The Chair is also not unmindful of the circumstance that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), in the course of his remarks, infringed the well-known rule that there may not be reference to a previous debate of the same session; but no exception was taken to that on the part of the Chair, for the reason that the Prime Minister was dealing largely with the question of policy. Over and above all that, I have had in mind this circumstance, that the motion has to do with a subject of tremendous importance, of such great importance that it seems to me in the public interest, that technicalities (if I may use that term) of the procedure of this House should not interfere with the widest possible discussion of this subject. At the same time, while hon. members are debating the motion, I hope they will not be unmindful of these rules and will infringe upon them no more than the circumstances will warrant.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the few remarks which I wish to make in
(Mr. Meighen.]
reply to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), I shall endeavour not to take a wider range than he has taken with reference to the motion which he has presented to the House. As my right hon. friend has reminded us, the circumstances under which this motion is presented to the House to-day, will be fresh in the minds of all hon. members, and need not be reviewed. In a word, we have been seeking, in this House, to find a way in which Parliament may be informed with respect to expenditures on the Canadian National railways. We, on this side of the House, have taken the broad position that, as regards expenditures on railways owned and controlled by the Government, the responsibility upon the Government is precisely the same as it is with respect to expenditures by any department of [DOT] Government.
The customary methods whereby information is supplied to Parliament, so far as I am able to see, are three in number. Information can be supplied in answer to questions of the Ministry; it can be supplied by orders for the production of documents, or it can be supplied through a committee of Parliament appointed for the purpose. With respect to the Canadian National Railways and also the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, the Government have taken the position that it is not public policy, or, at any rate, it is the decision of the Ministry, not to give information with respect to these matters where the questions asked appertain to the management or control of the roads or the ships, and where it will be necessary to get an answer from the companies, so-called, which are conducting these great public services. As hon. members of the House well know, the Government, in conducting these public services, have adopted, in each case, the method of creating a corporation for the purpose of carrying on the particular business. We, on this side, take the position that the Government are perfectly within their rights in adopting any method they think will carry out most efficiently the purposes for which Parliament is voting public money. On the other hand, we maintain that, with respect to whatever method they adopt, they cannot relieve themselves of the responsibility which, at all times, must rest upon ministers of the Crown to account to the people's representatives in Parliament for every dollar of public money which has been voted by Parliament for any public purpose.
Naturally, when my right hon. friend gave notice that he intended to move in

this House for a committee to consider this aspect of public expenditure, we, on this side, were only too glad to have the Government intimate at last that they were prepared at least to consider some way of giving the public information in regard to public expenditures. We, therefore, welcomed the suggestion of a committee, whether it were a select standing committee or a special committee, which would give promise, at least, of Parliament being supplied with necessary information.
May I point out that the Government have taken three distinct attitudes towards this important matter of supplying Parliament with information with respect to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine? Their first attitude, the attitude taken last session, shortly after Parliament had been informed of a deficit of some $48,000,000 on the Canadian National railways, was that Parliament would have the fullest information, the fullest powers of investigation, the right to get details on any particular phase of management, operation or control of the National railways, all that was asked was that Parliament should wait until the report of the Board of Directors was laid on the table of the House. In other words, we were asked, when voting the Estimates of moneys required for the coming year, to wait until that report was laid upon the Table, and then once the amounts were voted we would be given the right to the fullest information; we would be able to get answers to any questions that we might wish to ask.
The second attitude which the Government have taken is the one which has been apparent throughout the whole of this session : it has been to deny to Parliament any information with respect to these public services except with respect to such matters as might come within the very circumscribed field of correspondence between the official departments, and other persons, as contrasted with the companies. In taking that position, the Government have found themselves running counter very strongly, to opinion, not only throughout the country, but even in this House, and, I think, among their own supporters. The consequence is that we have now a third attitude, that, namely, of offering to Parliament a committee to find out what means and methods, if any, should be adopted for giving information to the public with respect to these great public services. We contend, Mr. Speaker, that the first of these attitudes, is the only position
which the Government are justified in taking; that as long as we are dealing with the expenditure of public moneys, the responsibility must rest upon the Government to give the fullest possible information, and that the Government have no right to restrict the powers of Parliament with respect to obtaining information to which it is entitled by referring the matter to any committee to determine one way or the other.
May I say that when my right hon. friend expressed his intention of moving for a committee, we naturally awaited its precise terms with eager expectation. Looking, however, at the terms as they have now been formally set forth, we find that the committee proposed is not so much a committee formed for the purpose of giving Parliament information, as it is a committee for the purpose of placing restrictions around the giving of information to Parliament. We say that is an entirely wrong position. What the Government should aim at is not a method of restricting the giving of information to Parliament in regard to great public services, involving expenditures amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, but to find a way whereby the fullest information possible can be given to Parliament with respect to these all important matters.
May I, in this connection, draw the attention of the House to the different clauses of the proposed resolution. My right hon. friend suggests that this committee should first of all be instructed to inquire:
What information as to operation of Canadian National Railways and Shipping as conducted by the Board of Directors and Management should, in the public interest, be brought down in Parliament on Question, Motion for production of papers , or otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, we do not require a committee for that purpose. This House has the right to any and all information on any matters of great public interest and concern. That is the position we take, not that a committee should be formed to find out what information should be brought down. We contend it is the duty of the Government to bring down anything that is asked for by hon. members of Parliament, or to take the responsibility for not so doing. The Government are not obliged to bring down information if they do not wish so to do, but they have to take the responsibility for refusing to bring down information. That is the position we take. We contend that the Government cannot

relieve itself of an obligation, fundamental as respects every ministry, to be accountable to Parliament for any and every transaction of a public nature, and to give to Parliament the fullest and amplest information whenever that information is requested. We say that any attempt to restrict that right by throwing on to a committee of this House the duty of finding out what information should or should not be brought down, is simply depriving this House of a right which it has, and which it must continue to hold, if it is to continue to exercise a right which the representatives of the people in Parliament are expected at all times to possess.
The second question which my right hon. friend proposes the committee should inquire into is this:
When, by what method, and under what conditions, if any, should such information be given ?
There again, Mr. Speaker, is precisely the same point. This committee obviously is not for the purpose of enabling Parliament to get full information in regard to the great public services, but to determine when, by what method, and under what conditions, if any, information is to be given. We contend that the information ought to be given without restrictions, excepting where the Government itself is prepared to take the responsibility for withholding the information, and we cannot relieve the Government of their first and fundamental duty in that regard by sanctioning any reference to a committee which will, even impliedly, restrict the rights and powers of this House.
The next question which the committee is to inquire into is:
What system of auditing should be adopted, and what extent of detail should be given in the Annual Report.
That is a matter that may very properly be taken up by a committee, but it does not help towards a solution of the great question that is before this country at the present time. It does not enable us to get information with respect to the manner in which the deficit of $70,000,000* on the Canadian National Railways has been brought about. Now that is the very information that we want to obtain; that is the information that the people of this country want at the present time; and if there is to be any solution of the railway problem in this country it will only be found by Parliament and the public having the fullest knowledge and the amplest in-

formation possible on which to base their suggestions. So any reference to a system of auditing, while it may be very useful in some other connection, does not help us at all in regard to the main situation that is before the country at the present time.
The last reference to the committee is this:
Whether and for what purposes the said Committee should be continued-
Here, again, is a matter wholly aside from the main question. The resolution goes on:
-and for such other purposes as the Committee deem in the public interest there be referred to said Committee the Annual Report of the Board of Directors and that the said Committee have power to examine witnesses under oath, to send for papers, persons, and records, and to report from time to time.
Let me say with reference to this particular clause, which refers to the committee the annual report of the Board of Directors, what I think the House pretty generally recognizes, that a select committee has no powers to deal with any matters except such as are referred to it by Parliament. Now the resolution as drafted sets forth a number of subjects which are to be referred to the proposed select committee. By implication it follows that matters not explicitly set forth in the resolution will not come within the scope of the powers of the select committee. Instead, therefore, of the select committee, in any probability, functioning with regard to the obtaining for this Parliament of information with respect to the all important matters on which we have been seeking information, the committee undoubtedly will take the position that its powers are restricted to the matters that have been expressly referred to it by this House of Commons.
What we feel, Mr. Speaker, is this, that instead of placing a number of restrictions upon the duties of the committee, instead of limiting its powers, there should be conferred on it by this House of Commons the amplest and fullest powers to inquire into all matters pertaining to the control, operation, and management, of the Canadian National Railways, and of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, these being the two important public services and issues with which the time of this Parliament is likely to be most occupied during the present session.
That, Mr. Speaker, I think, covers the point of view which we on this side take with respect to the motion of my right

hon. friend. Let me, as regards the matters referred to the committee, supplement what I have said by quoting the remarks of my right hon. friend made the other day when speaking of the committee with respect to which his motion is now made. On -the 5th of April, as reported at page 1660 of Hansard (unrevised), my right hon. friend said:
It must never be thought that we should give to a committee powers or duties exceeding those we ourselves are ready to exercise. For example, if it is not in the interests of the country that we so hamper the management of the road as to render efficiency impossible by doing in this House what this House decided some few days ago it would not do, namely, bring out merely upon question or motion all information, no matter what it is, if that is not going to be done by Parliament, then Parliament is certainly not going to commit to a committee the power to do what in the public interest it is not right for Parliament to do itself. That could not be considered at all.
That statement of my right hon. friend must be read in conjunction with the clause in the motion which he has just put before the House setting forth the scope of the committee's work. Clearly my right hon. friend has intimated that he does not propose to allow this committee to elicit information of a kind which the Government has refused to give to the House. We contend that a select committee should be formed for the purpose of getting for Parliament, through that source, the information which has been denied to us through other channels, and in that connection, we think, the committee should have the widest posable powers which this House can confer upon it.
Let me mention in passing that while my right hon. friend's motion refers to railways and shipping, he confines the references in the several paragraphs of the motion only to matters pertaining to the national railways. We think that the same duties and powers should be given to the committee with respect to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.


Arthur Meighen: That is intended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad we have been able to enlarge the scope of the committee even that much. I wonder if it is also intended that the committee should have the power to engage counsel and transportation experts to assist it in connection with its work. It must be apparent to hon. members that in view of the magnitude, and of the technical nature in many particulars, of transactions pertaining to the Government merchant marine and the
Canadian National Railways, and with the time of hon. members occupied as it is certain to be between now and the end of the session, it will be impossible for any committee of this House to elicit information that will be of real service to the House unless they have the right to retain counsel, and particularly transportation experts, to assist them in carrying out their duties. I propose, therefore, in the amendment I am about to move, to suggest that these larger rights and powers be conferred. The powers of the committee should not be restricted in any way, but should be the amplest which Parliament can give.
As my right hon. friend says, it will probably take to the end of the session for any committee to deal with the several problems he has outlined. What does that mean? It means that, as respects the Canadian National railways and the Canadian Government marine, we shall end this session without obtaining any infor-without obtaining any information at all with regard to the facts upon which we have been seeking light. We shall get a report from a committee petting forth, notwithstanding my hon. friend's objection to the term, an academic statement of certain methods of proceeding. But we shall not get the facts and the information which will account before the public for the enormous deficits that have been incurred during the last few years, and which will probably be still larger next year; nor shall we get the light needed to enable us to deal intelligently with the whole railway and shipping situation. In the circumstances, therefore, I beg to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) :
That all the words after the word "session", on the second line, to the end of the question, be omitted, and the following be inserted instead thereof:
That such committee shall have power to inquire into all matters in any way relating to the railways- owned or controlled by the Government of Canada whether under the direction of the Department of Railways and Canals or under any corporation in which the Government are stock holders, whether relating to the construction or operation, from the date of the appointment by the Government of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Northern Railway Gompay down to the present time ; and similarly to inquire into all matters in any way connected with the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, either in respect of the construction or operation of the ships, and that such committee shall have power to send for papers, persons, and records, to engage counsel and transportation experts, and to make such reports and recommendations from time to time as, in their judgment, will be calculated to promote the public interest.

In connection with this amendment, I hope the House will not lose sight of the fact that the country is demanding to-day full light upon the circumstances which have occasioned a deficit of something like $48,000,000 last year and $70,000,000 this year on the National railways; also that Parliament is being asked by the Government to vote for railways and canals for the ensuing year a sum amounting to over $167,000,000, while thus far we have not been able to get any information of a substantial or vital character in regard to the operation, the control, and the management of these public services. It is to enable Parliament and the country to obtain the fullest light possible on these vast expenditures of public moneys that this amendment has been drafted in the comprehensive form in which it appears.


Hon.   S@: I am very glad to know that there are some things in connection with which I can join my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) in hearty accord. We do agree that the present situation, having particular regard to the railways, their deficits, and their general operation, is of grave importance. But we differ slightly as to the way in which we should endeavour to get something done to meet the difficulty; and it is by reason of the fact, among others, that the Government is impressed with the gravity of the situation and is fully alive to. its importance, that we are so anxious to have the best possible committee that can function upon this subject entrusted with the determination of perfectly plain and simple issues upon which we may base some concrete answer and give some concrete -information that may be of assistance to the House. In the first place, I do not know that it makes so much difference, in so far as this motion is concerned, as to just exactly what the Government has been doing in connection with the giving of information. Whether what we have been doing is right or wrong, we desire to see if matters cannot be handled in a better and more simple manner and in a more concrete form than heretofore. My hon. friend is entirely correct, in one respect, in his statement as to the Government's course. He says that last year it was understood that the fullest information was to be given to the House just so soon as the report was laid on the Table. Well, the position is the same to-day; it has not been varied in the slightest. The reports have been tabled and they are not only open to hon. members, but they may be sent [Mr. Mackenzie Klng.l
to any appropriate committee, on the request or the motion of any hon. gentleman. But the fact is that this year, as last year, no action has been taken by the Opposition in connection with the annual report with a view to obtaining information which they thought necessary for their purposes. This year, it is said, we have refused all information; but the position is exactly the same as it was last year, so far as the reports are concerned. Now, if I understand the tenor of my hon. friend's remark's,-and I have tried my best to follow them-what he wants, apparently, is that the Government should bring down any information that is asked for or else take the full responsibility for declining to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: My hon. friend says "hear, hear." Well, if'that is the position, why is he worrying? Why is he annoyed? Why is he vexed? We have refused to bring down information and we have taken the responsiblity for that refusal; we ought to be perfectly happy. But we want to do something more. We do not want to leave this matter to the arbitrary exercise of any government right of refusal. We do not want to take that position if it can be found, having regard to the tremendous values of these properties and the great task of properly managing them, that information can from time ro time be brought down to any greater extent than has been the case in the past. We should like to remove the subject from a position with which my hon. friend would appear to be entirely content.
_ The motion is drawn for the purpose of including both the railways and the marine service. And it is not only drawn with	that intention but it	carriesthat	intention into effect,	because
it is the same committee, it is the same board of management, the same directors manage both systems. Both systems are covered, the same directors are covered, and the same jurisdiction is given to the committee over the marine as over the railways. Then I am afraid that my hon. friend likes very much the present situation. He likes having it left so that information is asked for and information is refused. And the reason why I think he was perfectly sincere in his statement that he thought that that ought to be the position is fortified by the amendment that he now brings down-and I only had the opportunity of looking over it while my hon. friend was speaking.

After all how does the question come up? The whole question comes up with the request for information-that and nothing else. I notice that my hon. friend's amendment strikes out all reference to this burning question of information altogether. It is struck out entirely-apparently there is no immediate hurry for information in this committee. In place of it-in place of a clear, a defined field of operation-a field is left which is of itself so great that unless some particular programme be laid down I do not know when any report could be expected; certainly not for a long time, certainly not within any reasonable period -and my hon. friend lets the committee loose on that large field. Well, I do not know what that is for, what the idea is whether it is to be a general fishing expedition or whether they were to go back and find out why at one time railways that had to be built went in a certain direction, or whether some farm crossing in a certain concession was taken up that ought to be left and what it is for, matters far removed from the present difficulty that, I take it, we are all honestly anxious to have solved. No matter how far removed these questions may be my hon. friend proposes that they be all left to the committee with full powers for a general fishing expedition.
Now I think my hon. friend was wrong in another direction. He says that instead of finding excuses for not bringing down papers, the object of the Government ought to be to find a way to give the fullest information to Parliament. That is exactly what we are trying to have done; that is exactly the concrete thing that is left to that committee. I do not know any other way whereby you could pursue anything like a course of action, which would not hurt business, to let you know where you are, or any method more likely to bring >
about, than leaving the concrete question to that committee.
Then my hon. friend says the committee wlil have no powers except in connection with these three matters-the papers containing information, the method of bringing them down and the audit. Well, I would like to point out that the whole report was referred to the committee. The whole of that report is in the hands of the committee and that being so they have the right of going into anything and everything they want arising out of that report. My hon. friend will find nothing having regard to the conduct of its business which is not directly or indirectly covered by that report.
A further thing that my hon. friend points out is that there is nothing in the resolution giving them the information which they very much desire-namely, information as to why the deficit is as great as it is. Well, I dare say that hon. gentlemen opposite have better memories than I have, but does any one remember any questions being put on the Order Paper asking for reasons as to why the deficit is so large? Nobody ever heard of it. On the other hand, we have heard of questions put for the purpose of showing that the deficit ought to be greater, questions put for the purpose of ascertaining why 4 p.m. some agent is not working twenty-four hours a day, why the office is not open twenty-four hours a day, or why at some point there is not a regular station instead of a flag station-these are the questions that are being asked.


Mr. McMASTER:: May I interrupt my hon. friend? Does the Minister of Finance not remember questions put on the Order Paper asking what other directorships were held by the directors of the Canadian National Railways, and what business has been done with the companies in which they were interested?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that is any answer to the question I put.
I do not know whether the object in making such an interrogation on the part of my hon. friends was to find out whether or not the men of business being put on the National system were men so little known to the business world that no other business organization had any confidence in them. But that is not a question as to why the deficit is as great as it is and what can or ought to be done with regard to reducing it.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: Does
my hon. friend remember a question like this-whether the coal used in the running of the mercantile marine was bought by tender or by private contract,-and a refusal to give any answer?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection upon that point-and I speak entirely subject to correction-is that the question was put at one time as to whether the coal was bought by tender or not, but the question also went further and desired information as to the tenderers. My recollection is that the answer was that coal was bought by tender, but information as to who the tenderers were was refused. However, that may be, what I submit with very great confidence is, that it would be impossible

for us to ever ascertain why railways do not pay by asking questions across the floor of the House-that is absolutely impossible. On the other hand it well may be that if we had a committee properly manned and properly constructed-as I have no doubt this committee will be-with fixed and definite objects ahead of it, much good can be done.
Now the query is also made by the hon. gentleman as to whether counsel may be retained. Well, I have had a good deal to do with railway matters and I do not know that I ever found any farmer who appeared before the Railway Board-either in a rate case, or in a cattle case, or any other kind of a case-handicapped because he did not have a lawyer. After all, the issues here while they are very serious and very great are not legal. I would say that the committee could get along very well without the assistance of counsel.
There are lawyers in the House, and I have no doubt some of them will be on that committee, and it would occur to me that the expense of counsel is entirely unnecessary. Then, so far as traffic experts are concerned, again I do not know that it is necessary to take very much evidence from them. We want to get at the actual facts relating to transportation and the like. The committee may be able to get an expert who is not associated with or interested in either one system or the other -they may, but I would doubt it. It would occur to me that the best thing to be done on the question of retaining counsel and traffic experts is to leave it open, so that the committee can if the necessity occurs come back to this House and ask power to retain such assistance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, our position is simply this. We are sincerely anxious to see something done. We do not think that a general fishing inquiry as to what has happened in railway circles in Canada is going to help us very much in deciding what ought to be done at the present time. On the other hand, we have a direct commitment to this_ committee of something definite, and calling for a definite answer, which answer may, and we hope will, be of great assistance toward a solution of our railway problem.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this question, which is one of tremendous importance, is at this moment narrowed down to what I may call very small bounds-narrowed down to points which

the public will clearly understand, and about which I believe there can be no possibility of misapprehension. It seems to be the general wish of the House that a committee should be appointed to inquire into these matters. The question is as to what power shall be given to that committee. When it is appointed it will undoubtedly contain a majority of members supporting the Government. Now, just how that committee shall exercise the powers that may be assigned to it we are not to determine; we shall have to take the risk of that.
The motion of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) gives the committee certain specific and limited powers. I am not a lawyer, but somewhere in the dusty bins of the. legal profession I think there is a maxim which says, that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another; and if you specify in a statute or public document a number of things, you thereby exclude all others. If I am wrong in my legal doctrine, no doubt some one will correct me. At all events, if it is not law it is common sense. The motion of the Prime Minister assigns certain subjects to the committee; that means that no other subjects can be considered by it. The amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition takes in everything. I want that noted. Every thought and word that is in the motion of the Prime Minister is included in the amendment. But we go further. Ah, that is the point. The hon. minister says: No, you must not go further. Why go further? We have a great difficulty before us, a tremendous financial problem involving a very large deficit last year, a much larger deficit this year, and rumour says even larger again in the coming year. In regard to that I make no charge; I make no accusation against any of the managers of the road-
I do not even find fault; I do not know what all the trouble is. If I am asked: Have you a particular solution to offer for this great problem?-I say frankly, I do not know. In that respect I do not differ from other members probably. But if -we are asked to provide a solution, surely the first thing we must do is to get all the information possible; all the information, not on this, that or the other point, but on all points which in any way relate to this transaction, or which can have any bearing whatever in remedying the condition of things which we all desire to remedy.
Again I say I am not finding fault with the management, I make no accusatons. In

anything I have had to do with any of the gentlemen connected with these railways I have invariably received every courtesy and consideration, and the last thought in my mind is to suggest that there is any wrongdoing. Here is the position: an enormous deficit of $70,000,000,

equal to the total expenditure of Canada only a few years ago. Now, this tremendous financial problem calls for serious reflection, and reflection of an impartial character; in other words, a non-partisan study. It is that which we. desire. But surely members of the Government must see that when they start out by putting restrictions on the investigation and saying: You may investigate that particular thing, but you must not investigate something else, surely that is a position they cannot defend before the people of Canada. Our proposal is to appoint this committee and give them unlimited powers. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and I think the Prime Minister also, said that unless you give this committee some particular instructions to do some particular thing nothing would come of it. That is a very queer doctrine. We often appoint committees in general terms. I have in my hands the terms on which we appointed the committee on pensions. According to my hon. friend's contention, since we gave that committee no instructions they will do nothing, but we know they are giving attention to that very important subject, and I have no doubt are arriving at a solution which will be of great value. Here is the motion:
That a Special Committee be appointed to consider questions relating to the pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers, and any amendments to the existing laws in relation thereto which may be proposed or considered necessary by the committee; with power to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day its proceedings and the evidence taken, for the use of the committee, and to report from time to time; and that Rule 11 be suspended in relation thereto.
That, in different words, is exactly what we are proposing now. We say: Here is a great problem. Appoint your committee and give them unlimited powers. I think the Prime Minister made one remark in that connection, which I fully endorse. He said that it would be in the power of the committee to embarrass the management of the road, but, he added, "it is inconceivable that they would do so." I accept that view. I say that this committee appointed in general and unrestricted terms would
neither embarrass the management nor be disagreeable and insist on calling people whom it is unnecessary to call. It would be in their power to do a great many things, but I agree with the doctrine of the right hon. Prime Minister that it is inconceivable they would do them. Why not, then, give the committee all the power that is possible? I cannot for the life of me see the need of restriction, to say that they are not to be given a free hand, but must report on certain particular things and those only. By our motion we say: Let them report on whatever in their judgment is best calculated to bring about a solution of this problem. That is the great duty, at every stage we should have a full open inquiry, trusting the committee to be reasonable, to exercise their power as members of Parliament with a sense of their responsibility to their constituents, to this House and to the country; and to report whatever in their judgment is fair and reasonable. Everything that is contemplated by the motion of the right hon. Prime Minister is included in our amendment; let there be no mistake about that All he asks we are asking too, but we say if there is anything more that can be brought to the knowledge of this committee, by all means let us have the benefit of it, and leave the committee unrestricted in any way, shape or form. The matter seems to me so simple that I really could not debate it at any length; the principles are too plain and too clear. It is a question whether we shall have a restricted and limited inquiry, or whether we shall give an absolutely free hand to this committee to bring their best judgment to bear upon this question, to exercise their responsibility to their constituents, to this House and to the country and invite all available information, giving the House every possible suggestion that the judgment of the committee may tell them is going to be helpful towards a solution of this problem. We by our amendment enable them to do that, but they are told by the motion of the Prime Minister that though they may have notions in their mind of some solution of this problem they must not say anything about them, because they do not come within the four corners of his resolution. It is a question between full inquiry-that is what the country wants-and restricted inquiry. Again, I say that I make no charge or complaint. We are confronted with a great financial problem which is disturbing the country, and justly disturb-

ing the country. I approach it in every spirit of fairness to all concerned. I complain of nothing; I find fault with nothing. I say that what we all need is information. Let us get the fullest information that is possible and then try to find a solution.


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) , echoing in that regard, if I am not mistaken, the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King.), persists in speaking of the committee for the appointment of which the leader of this House (Mr. Meighen) has moved as a committe to provide restriction upon information. The hon. gentleman suggests that his proposed amendment remedies that alleged defect by providing for the appointment of a committee with a roving commission to get all or any information whatsoever about anything great or small connected with the operation or management of the railways or of the shipping. In taking that position, hon. gentlemen are simply refusing to consider the first problem that presents itself; their motion simply begs the real question. The committee for which the right hon. leader of the House asks is a committee to study the problem of how we may remove the obstacle which presents itself to the obtaining of information. While we must recognize the right of this House to have all information necessary to the intelligent performance of its duty of controlling the expenditures made out of the moneys of the people, on the other hand it is the duty of the House to protect the people from any injury that might come to them through the making public of all the details of the operation of their business carried on in competition with others. Now, that is the problem we have to face, and the purpose of the proposed committee, far from being to restrict the information to be obtained, is that the Government may obtain the judgment of that committee ^as to the best method of obtaining all possible information without involving the particular injury that I have mentioned.
And what position do hon. gentlemen take in regard to that? They say: Our principle is that, whatever may be the injury to the public interest, we must have all information about every detail in connection with the operation of these roads, and we refuse to give one moment's consideration to the question whether the obtaining of information may not be infinitely more damaging to the public interest than our doing without it. I ask this House, is that an intelligent position? Is that the position that

ought to be taken by a Parliament desirous of really protecting the substantial and material interests of the people of this country? Is it not quite clear that our first duty is to determine to what extent it is essential that information should be obtained? It may be conceded that there is an absolute right to obtain all information, but it is not always wise or prudent to insist upon absolute rights. Certainly no one would speak in high praise of the action of an agent or trustee, who, because he had an absolute right to obtain and to give broadcast to the public certain information, would insist on exercising that right, even though his doing so would ruin the interests of his principal or of the persons for whom his trust existed.
Now, what we are asking this House to do is, first, to submit to the committee the question how we are going to get the necessary information without causing detriment to the public interest. Surely hon. gentlemen should at least be willing to consider that question. v


William Stevens Fielding: Will the committee
not consider it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are asking the
committee to consider it. The hon. gentleman objects to our asking the committee to consider it.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He says we must say
to the committee: We do not want your opinion or your report as to what information ought to be obtained; we send you out to obtain all information that it may occur to you to ask for. The hon. gentleman seems to misapprehend the purpose of the appointment of this committee; it is to enable us to determine a preliminary problem that necessarily must be determined before we proceed to the obtaining of information. Suppose the committee were appointed under the terms of the amendment and proceeded to obtain, as the hon. gentleman boasts they are going to be authorized to do, any and all information concerning the details of the operation of the road; it would be only after they got and made public certain information that we should realize that that information should not have been made public at all. There would be no remedy; after all information had been obtained, we should proceed to judge whether or not certain details should or should not have been made public. I appeal to the common sense of this House: is it not reasonable to endeavour to regulate the action not only of this committee but of its successors, if it should be determined

that it shall continue in existence-is it not the part of simple common sense to determine first what information should be got and what is the best way to go about getting it? Then it will be time enough-


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Does my right
hon. friend contend that it is necessary to appoint a committee to inquire into what information should be given to the House?


William Stevens Fielding: That is what the motion says.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The contention is this
-I have tried to make it clear-that it is desirable that we should consider the nature of the information that it is desirable, in the particular situation that arises, should be asked for, obtained, given to the House and made public. Possibly that committee may arrive at the conclusion and may advise that there should be no limit, no restriction. I am not anticipating what their decision will be.


Joseph Archambault: Does my right
hon. friend contend that it is necessary to appoint a committee to inquire into what information should be given to the House? Will that committee specify what information should be given to the House?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would be exceedingly useful-


Joseph Archambault: I want a straight answer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is going to go just
as straight as the line that runs from my eye to the hon. gentleman.


Joseph Archambault: Will my right
hon. friend make an effort to make the matter clear?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have struggled to
make things clear -


Joseph Archambault: We will admit
that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -and I have been astonished at the obtuseness which I find myself up against. I however, have rather an inclination to think that the hon. member who is owning to obtuseness, only thinks it useful or, perhaps, a little bit amusing-


Joseph Archambault: No, I am most
serious.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -to claim a little more obtuseness than he really possesses. To give him a straight answer, when people are faced with these two considerations which the public interest requires them to
give thought to, on the one hand the right of Parliament to obtain all the information that is necessary to enable it properly to perform its functions, and, on the other hand, the interest of the people of Canada to be protected against unnecessary and unwise disclosures to the whole public of the business operations of the people of Canada, I think it is useful and the part of wisdom and common-sense to sit down and consider the best methods of reconciling those two things, both of which you want to respect and both of which it is your duty to respect. That being so, I think this committee is a useful method of studying that problem. It is not for me to anticipate what the report of the committee will be. They will be put in a position to ascertain all the circumstances, all the conditions, to obtain information and advice with regard to the question of just how far it is disadvantageous to the carrying on of the businesses of this country that there should be absolute revelation of all the operations, and they will be able to report to this House the opinion, the conclusion to which they have come, in view of what they have so ascertained. The House then will have the benefit of that advice in determining-because ultimately, of course, the report of this committee must come to this House-what in its judgment is the nature of the information that ought to be obtained and to be insisted upon. The Government, in the determination of that question which, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) says, should rest entirely with the Government and be dealt with entirely on the Government's responsibility, will have the advantage of the advice of this committee and of the views held by Parliament and expressed as a result of its consideration of the report of this committee.
There is the problem that presents itself, the problem that must be determined, before we start out to obtain indiscriminate information with regard to the carrying on of those business operations. As I have said, I put it to the common-sense of this House whether it is or is not wise that we should examine into the question of what information should be obtained?
What objection there can be to that question being considered, I confess I am at a loss to understand. We are face to face with a simple determination to refuse to recognize the existence of that question at all, to refuse to give it thought, to refuse to consult about it, to refuse to look into it at all, and simply to fall back on the absolute assertion: We have a right to

have every information without regard to the possible effects that I have pointed out, and we propose to appoint a committee to go out and gather in that information, exercising simply, without any control from this House, whatever powers of discrimination it may have itself. The amendment seems to me to be just another means adopted to avoid doing what common sense calls upon us to do, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the inspiration that is behind the moving of that amendment is a desire to conserve and to preserve a grievance of which we may have perpetual iteration in this House. If the hon. gentlemen want information, surely they ought to be willing to consider the best methods of getting it. If the hon. gentlemen do not want information, then it would seem to me they are, by this amendment, adopting the proper course to reach that result,-because by this amendment they persist, in face of the vote of this House that there is discrimination to be made between the information to be obtained and that which should not be obtained, in refusing to recognize that necessary discrimination; and they insist upon maintaining the position that we are to have nothing but the abstract affirmation that we are to have anything that any member of this House chooses to ask for and that we are to authorize this committee to ask for and obtain any information which, in their judgment, they may consider that they are entitled to ask for.


Mr. VIEN:: Does my right hon. friend seriously believe that, through the instrumentality of the committee now proposed, any valuable information will be forthcoming to this House?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I very seriously believe that, through the instrumentality of this committee, this House has every prospect of obtaining the necessary material to enable it to decide what its attitude should be upon this question of obtaining information with regard to the operation of the Canadian National railways. And when this House has obtained that material, the advice of the committee, it will be able to lay down rules, which, in its judgment-


Thomas Vien: And to avoid all information.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, the hon.
gentleman is entitled to his opinion upon the subject, and he will have an opportunity of exposing it when I get through.

But it strikes me as extraordinary that it should be suggested that consideration of the best way to obtain information is a means to avoid getting any information at all.


Thomas Vien: Surely.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The logic of that conclusion I have difficulty in perceiving. It seems to me that there is perhaps a misapprehension. There are two things that require to be done, and one requires to be done, it seems to me, before the other. The first one is to determine what is sought to be determined by the report, or, at all events, upon the report or by the advice of this committee; that is to say, the problem of how we are to proceed with regard to obtaining information respecting this public service. The second one will be, when the first problem is solved, to proceed to obtain that information in accordance with the conclusion reached upon the first question. The present motion of the right hon. the Prime Minister is for a committee to enable us to solve the first problem, and I am confident that this House will see the wisdom of our reaching a solution of that problem as a preliminary-


Thomas Vien: What objection is there to giving to the committee itself the power to obtain the information that it is suggested the committee should have? Why not let the committee obtain the information and submit it to the House?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That takes away from this House any power to control the determination of the question what information ought to be obtained. The House would be abdicating entirely its own judgment. This committee is not going to pronounce final decisions. It is going to make a report to this House to enable this House to decide; and it does seem to me that what my hon. friend is asking is that this House abdicate any exercise of judgment on its own part as to what information should or should not be obtained, and put absolutely in the hands of the committee the determination of that question, with the possible result that they may determine it in a manner to which this House would not assent, and may, in virtue of that determination of their own, proceed to obtain and give to the public information which it might be perfectly manifest, and which the judgment of this House might be, should never have been given to the public.
This House, after all, should retain the control of the ultimate determination of

this preliminary question as to what information should be obtained, and the best method of obtaining it. There will be nothing lost by our protecting ourselves in the exercise of that right, and hon. members who will not be on that committee will have the opportunity of passing in review the decision of the committee- if one may call it a decision, or at all events, the conclusion to which the committee will have come-and possibly acting upon it, possibly modifying it, or possibly coming to the conclusion that there is error with regard to it. This House will then have acted the part of a wise man, that is to say, will have considered the preliminary problem first, and before it starts out to secure the information, either directly or through the committee, will have formed an intelligent judgment on which it can base an intelligent rule as to how it is to be guided in the obtaining of that information, the extent to which it should go, and the best methods in the public interest to procure that which is necessary; and preserve from publicity, on the other hand, anything which it is in the public interest should be withheld from publicity.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: May I put a question to my right hon. friend? If, as he seems to contemplate, the committee should be restricted in its own search for information, how can it give to the House an opinion of any value on information which it does not itself possess?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The committee is not restricted in the slightest degree with regard to the obtaining of information useful for the purpose of reporting on the questions that are submitted to it. It may have whatever information in its judgment be deemed necessary to enable it to report to this House as to the nature of the information, generally speaking, that should be given, and the best method of obtaining it, and as to the other matters that are submitted to it, including the report of the Board of Directors and all matters that come up in connection with it. They are not restricted in any way.


Thomas Vien: That is without the scope of the reference. The reference does not give to the committee the power to collect information, but only to report on what information should be supplied by the Government to the House.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I
must remind hon. members that the House is not in committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are four distinct purposes for which this committee is constituted, and upon which it is asked to report. The motion after enumerating those things upon which the committee is to report, says:
-and that for the above purposes and for such other purposes as the Committee deem in the public interest there be referred to said Committee the Annual Report of the Board of Directors and that the said Committee have power to examine witnesses under oath, to send for papers, persons, and records, and to report from time to time
Where is the restriction upon their obtaining any information whatsoever that can in any way be useful to enable them to attain the purposes for which they are appointed. Surely, you could not get any wider terms. Surely, hon. gentlemen who are making these objections have not looked closely into the terms of the motion.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): Mr. Speaker, this is a question on which the Government and the Opposition would naturally find themselves divided. The Government in seeking to restrict the powers of the committee are asking just what you would expect them to ask. They act on the principle: Mistrust the people and give them as little information as possible. We, on the other hand, believe in this principle: Trust the people and give them the fullest possible information. It goes without saying that Parliament itself must finally be responsible for the conduct of the Government railways, it is impossible to get away from that fact. To this committee which the Prime Minister is proposing to-day we are asked to delegate work that should have been undertaken by the Government itself more than four years ago, when they took over the railway system. At that time the Government should have determined on a policy as to the management of the railway. I say that the Government are going beyond their powers when they say that to give certain information would not be in the public interest and therefore they withold it. It is taking away from the people's representatives their rights, and that cannot be permitted, and will not be permitted by the people when they have an opportunity to pronounce theit verdict. Either Parliament must control or there is irresponsible control; it must be one or the other,-if Parliament does not control, there is no control. We must therefore get back to Parliamentary control. Then the question arises, what information should be given to Parliament? In former days the Govern-

ment gave practically all information as to expenditure and the management of the roads under their control, but when the Act was passed incorporating the Canadian National Railways, the Government took out of the control of Parliament certain expenditures which they said would not be submitted to the Auditor General's Department. Since that practice has been in vogue, we find that the management have been losing enormous sums of money. At that time we objected to that principle. We maintained that every expenditure should be audited by the Auditor Generals Department but the Government took the opposite view, and since then they have not given the information that the people of this country are entitled to. As a consequence rightly or wrongly, the people of this country have lost confidence, not only in the Government, but in the management of the railways. They feel that there must be something wrong when the deficits run up to such huge proportions.
The Minister of Finance said this afternoon that we had not been asking questions. Well, one of the reasons why we have not been doing so this session is the fact that the Government intimated that they were going to find some means of giving the House information. The resolution of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) was on the Order Paper for some time, and until it was disposed of we felt that we should give the Government an opportunity to state their case and tell us what they purposed doing on the question of information. Now they come with the proposal to shift the responsibility from their own shoulders and place it on a committee which shall be restricted in its operations. Well, we ask in turn that the committee have the fullest powers to go into everything connected with the railway management and control. The argument advanced by members of the Government against this proposal has been that they do not want to give away the secrets of management. Let me tell my hon. friends that the people of this country are not looking for secrets to failure they are looking for secrets to success. If any secrets concerning the failure of the railway management are vouchsafed, I am quite satisfied that they will not be adopted by any railway operated under private management.
Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that I would not for a moment support the Government in any way if I had the assurance that they were going to the country within a few months. But they

have given us no such assurance; on the contrary, they have quite plainly signified their intention to hold on until the expiration of their term, which means another two years. During that time they will have squandered another $300,000,000 of the people's money on these railways. With that possibility facing us I think it is the duty of every citizen of Canada to try to find a solution for this serious problem; not that I want to assist the Government particularly, but because I am anxious to do what I can to help the people of Canada. We ought to have a committee with the fullest possible powers to send not only for railway experts but for people from the business world whose opinions and advice might be of assistance. The committee, I think, should be given power to send for any person whom they might desire to consult; if they are restricted in any way we cannot hope for any results.
Every one will agree that the Government are still trying to deceive the people, and I believe they have no intention of attempting to solve the problem. It is ridiculous to say that the committee should not cross-examine the management and ask them questions relating to any phase of the railway situation. The management must come and ask for money, and the Government should want some reason and some explanation as to how that money is to be spent. If the management refuse to answer that question, then the Government should refuse to give the money; for the people have taken the stand that no moneys should be spent on the railways except under parliamentary control. The Minister of Finance said that we had not asked for the report of the Railway Board. I do not think the report has been tabled this year. Am I right?


John Dowsley Reid: I laid on the table of the House the annual report of the Minister of Railways, which contains the annual report of the board up to December, 1919. The other report, up to December 31, 1920, has not yet been laid on the Table because it takes some months to get all the figures together. It will be tabled in the course of a few days.


Mr. CAHILL:: The Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) then, was wrong if, according to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid), the report has not yet been laid on the Table.


John Dowsley Reid: It will be tabled in a
week or so.


Frank S. Cahill: But in the meantime we have not had an opportunity of perusing it. Now, the Minister of Finance also said that we did not ask questions last year regarding the management. We attempted then to ask questions'on that subject, but the invariable answer of the Minister of Railways was that it was not in the public interest. He would not give us any answers; he always gave the stock reply, " it is not in the public interest." Now they propose to appoint a committee the majority of whom will be supporters of the Government, and the result will be that any information will be blocked. It is the duty of the Opposition to ask for information, as it is the duty of the Government to give that information or take the responsibility for refusing it. The Government intimated that they would like assistance in this matter. Well, we are willing to lend them assistance if they will lay their cards on the table, play square, and give us a committee that will have full authority to investigate the very matters in regard to which the minister asks for advice. If they do not do that, I cannot see how they can ask the Opposition to offer suggestions or give assistance to help them out of the hole in which they find themselves.
Hon. J. t). REID (Minister of Railways) : I shall say just a few words on this question. At the outset, I must say that the Government have made an honest attempt to keep the operation of the railways out of politics, but this amendment, to my mind, would have no other effect than to put the whole subject back again into that sphere.


Thomas Vien: In what way?


John Dowsley Reid: Well, it is an omnibus resolution intended to embarrass the administration of the railways and to throw the whole thing back into politics. The Government are now submitting a resolution, and if hon. gentlemen desire to help the situation, let them consider the different matters contained in that resolution, and after full investigation of them the committee can come back, if they so desire, and ask for powers to go further.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does the minister say that the Government will enlarge the scope of the subject to be submitted to the committee?


John Dowsley Reid: I say that the committee can bring in their report to the House and ask for authority to deal with
further questions if they want to. That has been done many times.


Charles Murphy: And voted down.


John Dowsley Reid: It has been done several times, and no one knows it better than the hon. member himself. Now, the leader of the Opposition, in my opinion, has endeavoured to convey to the public the impression that the Government have been refusing to answer almost every question that has been asked since they undertook the control of the railways. But if hon. members will be good enough to consult Hansard they will discover that during the [DOT] last two or three years, or since the railways were taken over, the only questions in regard to which information has been withheld are those in connection with which it has been felt that disclosure of the facts would not be in the interests of the operation of the roads, and therefore of the public. If this committee is appointed I am satisfied that the management will be able to explain the reasons why that information should not be given. Why not let them go to the committee and explain just why it is not in the public interest to answer those particular questions. After hearing their views it will then be for the committee to decide whether the information should be given or not. I am satisfied that if the management appeared before that committee and expressed their views in regard to many questions that are put on the Order Paper, even the interrogators themselves would admit that those questions were not fair, bearing in mind the effect and disclosures sought would have on the proper and efficient operation of the system, and therefore were not in the public interest. That is one reason why I am most anxious to have this committee appointed-in order to demonstrate to the committee itself, as well as to the public, that we are justified in taking the position that there are questions which should not be answered.
There is another impression that the remarks of the leader of the Opposition would be likely to create in the minds of some people. It is, that since these railways have come under the control of the Government no information whatever has been given to Parliament with respect to their operation. That impression is an erroneous one because the annual report of the Department of Railways brought down last year, as well as the annual report tabled this year gives details of the operations not only of the system as a whole, but also of each particular branch of it.

The total earnings and the total expenditures are set out in that report as well as many other details. As regards the Intercolonial it is as complete a report of the operations and expenditures, under the respective heads, as was ever given. The Auditor General's Report gives very full details of the operation of the Intercolonial system. Hon. gentlemen will find there exact details of the amount paid to every single individual employed on it. His name appears there, the amount paid to him, and what it was for. But several volumes equally large would be required to give all the details of the expenditures on a system of railway comprising 23,000 miles. It may be that the committee will decide that that should be done. If they come to that conclusion they can report to Parliament and their recommendation can be carried out. But what I had in mind was this:	A blue
book is laid on the table, just the same as in the case of the report of the Department of Railways, setting forth the details of the operations of the whole Government Railway System-the Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial, the Transcontinental, and all the branch lines. If the leader of the Opposition desired any further information he could have asked that this report be referred to one of the committees of the House, and we should then have seen whether any information had been refused by the Government. Now, when the Estimates of my department were under consideration in Committee of the Whole last year I presented all the information that was desired with respect to it-I never refused any information that was asked for. I do not think there is any hon. member but will .corroborate that statement.


Frank S. Cahill: What about insurance?
Mr, ARCHAMBAULT:	What about
coal?


Frank S. Cahill: No, let us take the question of insurance first.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend apparently does not want the coal question answered, but I would say to the hon. gentleman who put the question, that if he will turn to page 4252, of Hansard of last year, he will see there a detailed statement containing the names of those from whom coal was bought for every part of this system, the number of tons that were purchased, and the price that was paid. Last year an hon. gentleman also wanted information about ties. Well, a reference to page 4251 of the same volume will show

that full information was given on that subject also. Let me quote what was then said:
Mr. Cahill: I want to find out who the tenderers are, how the contracts are let and to whom they are let. X want to know the number of ties they bought in 1919 and what they paid for them.
Mr. J. D. Reid: On July 21, 1919, tenders were advertised for our requirement of ties for the whole system. We advertised for 1,000,000 ties to be delivered on the Canadian National lines in British Columbia.	.	_
In answer to this advertisement we received tenders from twenty-eight firms, the lowest tenders being:
The answer then goes on to give the lowest tenders that were accepted. Now I ask my hon. friends in all fairness, was there any refusal on that occasion to give the information that was sought?


Mr. FOURNIER:: Is there information regarding the number of rails that were taken out of the road-bed of the Transcontinental and where they were sent to?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not now the information before me, but if my hon. friend would like to have it I will certainly get it for him. I have
5 p.m. never refused to answer questions of this kind.	Yet hon.
gentlemen are trying to create the impression in the public mind that the Government are refusing such information. My hon. friends seek to obtain information on transactions that are going on during the present year, and I contend it is not in the public interest that such information should be given except in the manner that was customary prior to our acceptance of office, and when the Intercolonial was the only railway under Government control. That information, however, was given after the annual report had been made and the transactions for the year had been closed.


Frank S. Cahill: Now, what about the insurance on the railways?


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the insurance being placed at the present time?


Frank S. Cahill: No, last year.


John Dowsley Reid: I was under the impression that I gave the hon. member that information, but perhaps I am mistaken. At any rate I see no reason why we should not tell my hon. friend what insurance there is and where it is placed. Only the other day I was asked what insurance there is on the hotel in Winnipeg. Without any

hesitation I told the hon. member who asked the question what the amount of the insurance was, and the names of those with whom it has been placed. I also stated that tenders were called for, and if I did not say so then I wish to say now that public tenders were invited for that insurance and we accepted the lowest tender.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the same plan been adopted all over the system?


John Dowsley Reid: I am informed by the general manager that wherever it can be followed that system is in force on the Canadian National system, not only as regards insurance but with respect to every article purchased.


Frank S. Cahill: When was that system adopted?


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I know it has always been the system.


Mr. COPP:: May I ask when the tenders for insurance were, called?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to appear discourteous to the hon. member, but I really have not that information. I will be very glad to get it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind hon. members that the House is not in committee, and that therefore the questions which are now being asked of the hon. minister are not strictly relevant to the discussion before the House. We are discussing the powers to be given to a committee; we are certainly not discussing the administration of the Canadian National railways.


Thomas Vien: May I say on that point of order, Mr. Speaker, that the minister affirmed that no information was refused to the House? In that respect he was subject to correction.


John Dowsley Reid: If I made any statements that the hon. member thinks are not correct, of course he can make any reply he wishes. But the statements that I am making now are absolutely correct. Now, another impression that I would get from the speech of the hon. leader of the Opposition is that he would like it to go out to the public that the loss of $49,000,000 last year was, through interference by the Government increased this year to $70,000,000. If the hon. gentleman wishes to do justice to the operation of the Canadian National railways, in the public interest he should have also stated what he knows
himself, for he has had it told him in this House and in the press, that some of the causes for this great increase in the deficit were: First, the McAdoo award, which compelled the railways of Canada to further increase the wages of their employees, and that increase being retroactive, the Canadian Government railways, if my memory serves me right, had to pay about $20,000,000 to its employees for the period between the first of May and the first of September,-a period during which there was no possible chance of getting any increased return from traffic, because the increased freight rates took effect only on September 1. Second, there is a very heavy increase in operating costs on account of the greatly enhanced price of fuel; the hon. leader of the Opposition knew this also. Third, during last year the Canadian National railways had to do exactly what the Canadian Pacific railway bad to do, that is, increase the expenditure on maintenance, in other words, attend to what is called deferred maintenance; this also the leader of the Opposition knew. We had to expend a very large amount on that account, which, of course, is charged to operation. When those several amounts are taken into account, the reason for the greater deficit is obvious, and but for these additional expenditures the loss in operation would not have been as much this year as for the previous year's operation.
Another impression needs to be corrected. One would think that the taking over of the operation of the Canadian Northern railway means that that railway is losing $70,000,000. But the leader of the Opposition knows that $20,000,000 of that loss is caused by the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and that $7,000,000, for the reason I have given here, is caused by the operation of the Transcontinental; or a total of $27,000,000 of that loss is due to the policy of the leader of the Opposition and his party when they were in power.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, may I rise to a point of order in view of the ruling which was given at the beginning of this discussion? I have no objection at all to the minister continuing along that line, but it must be understood that we will be at liberty to follow him. At the very opening of the debate the Speaker ruled that the question of the policy and the history of the national railways, and particularly the question of responsibility for the present conditions, were not to be discussed. The minister is now discussing them. If he

i	.
desires to do that, well and good, but I think it should be clearly understood that we are to be allowed to follow him along that line.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will
promise the hon. member not to trespass any further along that line.


Thomas Vien: But, Sir, I want it to be
clearly ruled that we will be authorized to follow the minister to the same extent so far as we are concerned.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely anxious to have this committee appointed and, if it is necessary, to bring before it every member of the management who understands the railway situation, in the hope that we may find out from them if it is possible to operate our railways in any better way. I am anxious to let this House know, by the management explaining to the committee, why it is not in the interests of our national railway system, and, therefore, of the public, that some of the information-and it is only of very limited amount-should be given. I think that the statements about information not being furnished are hardly fair to the management or in the interests of the operation of this system. In every case I have endeavoured to give all the information that any hon. member has requested, unless the management honestly felt that it would not be in the public interest to give it. When we have this committee functioning, I am sure hon. members who are now criticising the management, as well as the Government, for not giving certain information will change their minds, and, instead of creating an impression throughout the country that the operation of the road is not being carried on in the public interest, they will join with us in trying to make it a success. With that co-operation, I am satisfied, the Canadian Northern Railway system, with all its subsidiary companies, will in a few years prove one of the greatest assets we have not only in the development of this country but in bringing down freight rates to the lowest possible point.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve-Gaspe) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay this discussion. I am in favour of the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. I do not understand all this wrangle about the motion in itself and the amendment which has been offered. But it is easy to understand why, under such circumstances, the parliamentary institutions of Canada are falling into disrepute. Facing as we do a problem of such appalling magnitude, it

seems to me, Sir, that all parties should unite with a view to seeing that light is freely given to the taxpayers of Canada on this vexed question.
I repeat that I do not understand this wrangle. Here is a motion moved by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), a motion granting a committee. It is rather involved and restricted in its terms. I hear the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) say: I am quite ready to accept the motion, provided the suggestion of the hon. leader of the Opposition is also accepted. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the two motions which are before you are complete in themselves, so to speak. The Prime Minister grants a special committee to investigate railway matters but restricts its powers, and the leader of the Opposition, by his motion, offers to widen the scope of the inquiry. I object to the action of Parliament being restricted in any way in connection with this proposed investigation. No one, so far has averred that there is anything sinister behind it. For my part, I know the general manager and president of the Canadian National Railways, and speaking with a sense of at least some responsibility I have nothing to reproach Mr. Hanna. I will go further and say that under the circumstances under which he was handed the management of our railway system, he was perhaps the only man available. I do not see, therefore, what there is to fear from the investigation. I do not like the style adopted by the right hon. Prime Minister in his motion. It is much too involved; and the scope of the investigation too much restricted. Why all this mystery, Mr. Speaker? What the people expect is a full investigation in order that we may know how we can get out of the terrible muddle in which we find ourselves. I agree, therefore, with the attitude taken this afternoon by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's; I support the principle of the motion of the Prime Minister, but the powers of the committee are not wide enough, and I accept the principle involved in the amendment, that of affording to Parliament all facilities necessary to a full inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, the House must face the issue squarely. The time has gone by when parties could play politics with such a grave situation; for my part, I do not intend to do so. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) had to confess the other day that he was face to face with a deficit of $70,000,000 in respect of the government-owned railways,

and one of the best informed heads of his department came out in the press next day stating that the real deficit is $138,000,000. This is a serious gap, and how can we know who speaks the truth in the matter and who does not? We have, as I said the other day, become so accustomed to dealing in millions and even billions during recent years that we have lost all sense of proportion. But the people are beginning to feel the pinch, and they are clamouring for a halt in that carnival of expenditure. It is useless for any hon. member on either side to re-open old sores. It is of no avail to use the old argument: You are another. Having sat in the House for twenty-five years, I am, with others, partly responsible for the situation in which the country finds itself to-day as regards the railway question, and I do not wish to shirk my responsibility. If I have erred, Mr. Speaker, I wish to improve matters. But in order to improve matters, we must find a solution- How shall we solve the problem if not by the experience and the wisdom of those experts who will be heard before the committee? But let us vest in that committee the necessary authority to examine thoroughly the books, the correspondence, the orders and the management generally of the whole system. Is that a fair attitude to take? I think it is.
I say further that Parliament must not only save the railway system of Canada; it must above all save the credit of the nation-for the national credit is involved in the solution of this problem. Why should not the Prime Minister, with all his ability and his undoubted courage-why should he not, as they say in England, "take the bull by the horns" and give this committee the fullest powers? What can we learn with such restricted powers as are outlined in this motion? If he maintains the attitude which he has taken, what will be the result of the investigation? A committee will be appointed composed of members from both sides of the House, and with the restriction of the scope of the inquiry there will be a lack of unanimity. The committee will submit a minority as well as a majority report. This will not be because either side refuse to shed light upon the subject, but because they will be prevented by the very wording of the motion itself from inquiring fully into the administration of the railway system. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we should secure a unanimous report from that committee. It should be composed of the best men on both sides of the House. I exclude myself at once; I have
but limited knowledge on railway matters. But the committee should be selected from the most experienced men in the ranks of the three parties, men who know and who can speak with authority. I am not afraid to trust hon. members on both sides if you give them the necessary power to probe this whole situation.
Just now, the situation is very much embroiled. You do not meet two men on the street, but they will at once ask you: "What are you going to do with the railway problem and where is Canada drifting?" You have only to throw up your hands, to shrug your shoulders; you do not know what will be or what can be done. My right hon. friend has accepted the idea propounded in this House by the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and he has granted at last a committee with a view to disentangle the problem.	Why not do
at once the right	thing? Why
not give that committee all the powers which Parliament ' has undoubtedly the right to grant? Parliament, we all know, is defined by the authorities as being the great inquest of the nation. I trust the wisdom, the patriotism of members on both sides of the House; I trust their good judgment, their loyalty to Canada, and I say that to give that committee the widest powers would not imperil the railway situation, as my right hon. friend seems to fear it would.
As I read to-day press reports from the other side, I hang my head in shame. When I see the bondholders of the Grand Trunk congregating at the various banking institutions in London, clamouring for their dividends and the rumour being spread throughtout Great Britain that Canada will not pay, I say that I hang my head in shame. This is the first time in the history of Canada that it is said, with some semblance of authority, that Canada does not meet her obligations. Do you not believe, Sir, that if the amendment of the leader of the Opposition is voted down if that committee is not given the widest powers, people in England, and in the United States will say: "Canada by its Government wishes to dodge the issue; does not face it squarely; there is something so rotten that the public must not know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I say again: Give the widest powers to that committee.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that there is no sentiment in business, and that capital is easily frightened. Remember that if in 1849, the captains of industry in Canada

were shaken in their faith in their country, it was because'they realized that there was no sentiment in business. Let not the faith of the Canadian people be shaken in their institutions, if you wish to maintain this country as it has been maintained in the past. Sir, I am reminded, whilst we are witnessing in this chamber, the wrangle about the scope of the inquiry on the most momentous issue that has ever confronted the Canadian people, of the words of that great French orator at the time of the revolution, when to avoid a financial collapse, the states general were deliberating the urgency of levying a quarter of the national wealth of France: " Bankruptcy is at your door, and you are still deliberating." Far be it from me the thought that bankruptcy is at the door, but we are in a very serious crisis. We are facing the most complex situation that has ever confronted Canada, and when we are asking ' that the whole matter be probed to the bottom and a way found out of this trouble honourably for the credit of the country and to alleviate the burden of the tax payers we are stopped by a motion, involved, restricted in its terms. This is not the proper way to settle this difficulty. Again, I appeal to my right hon. friend to amend his motion, have it adopted unanimously by the House of Commons, then strike the strongest committee possible, go to work and thus relieve public anxiety.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) and the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) have, at any rate, this much in common, that they both propose reference to a committee, of matters relating to our Canadian National Railways and our Canadian Government Merchant Marine. In the discussion that took place in this House a few days ago upon a motion moved by the leader of the Opposition, I took the ground that the floor of Parliament was not the place to receive answers to questions relating to every detail of the administation of our national railways or merchant marine, nor was it the place in which to move for Orders for Returns in regard to any particular phase of the business or administration of those enterprises. At that time, I took the position that, in my judgment, the whole matter should be referred to a committee with power to make to this Parliament such recommendations as it saw fit. The reasons for that position to some degree at any

rate, I think I made clear at that time. If we are to have brought down in this House returns that will taring up discussions, going into every aspect of detail of the administration of those great enterprises to which this country is committed, I can see no possibility of securing efficient or successful management, for this reason, if for no other, that no self-respecting man, who has the capacity properly and adequately to manage those enterprises, will sit down under the cross-fire of debate in this House where, for political reasons, in the expectation possibly of political gain by either side of this House, his administration may be challenged, may be criticized, and he has not the power, nor the opportunity to make explanation or defence. No self-respecting management will submit to that, and consequently, the first essential, if we are to secure the efficiency in management which those enterprises require, is that we free the management from that possibility. But when I took that position, I took also the position that the matter should be referred to a committee and the opportunity given for full inquiry.
If I may refer again to what I was saying a moment ago, discussion of these details across the floor of this House will lead in itself to no useful purpose, nor give any effective aid to the solution of this question. Take the Canadian Pacific Railway, the best managed road for its size in the world, at the present time,-I think that claim can be made without fear of successful contradiction. But if you place the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the position that every detail of its business, every contract entered into, every purchase made, every station-house built, and the case of every man dismissed on the system, can be reviewed in Parliament, the efficiency that now exists in that corporation would not last for twenty-four hours. The railway would go down. Consequently, we must clear ourselves from this disability in the consideration of this great question. Now at the time I took the position I did, on the occasion of the resolution introduced by the leader of the Opposition, my hon. friend asked me a very definite question. He said:
Mr. Mackenzie King-: The hon. gentleman has intimated to the House that he is favourable to the resolution standing in the name of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) which is that these matters might be referred to a select committee. Is it my hon. friend's understanding in that connection that such a committee shall have the right to ask any ques-

tions with respect to these railways that may he thought in the public interest and have it answered?
Mr. Crerar: If I am in order in answering the question, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I certainly think so.
Having taken that position, I find myself now faced with the question of deciding between the motion moved by the leader of the Government, and the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition. The motion moved by the leader of the Government undoubtedly restricts the inquiry in some degree. I think that is clear. The difference between the motion and the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition lies in this, that the amendment of the leader of the Opposition embraces a wider scope of inquiry than the reference in the motion moved by the leader of the Government. Now, it does seem to me that when this matter is referred to the committee, it would be wise to give the committe power to inquire into any phase or aspect of the business that in its judgment may be deemed advisable, and I understand that this is the purpose of the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Believing that, I shall support the amendment. In all the discussions we have had on the railways in this House, we have had as yet very little in the nature of constructive suggestions as to how we shall overcome the difficulties that face us in reference to this business of railways and shipping. My hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) who spoke the other evening, did in my opinion offer a few constructive suggestions. I would like to see this committee when it gets to work, consider this question solely from the point of view of the national interest. Let us, if we can, drop all partisan spirit in connection with this matter. The criticism I have to offer, if I may offer it here now to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, is this, that while he has criticised a great deal so far, he has offered no constructive suggestions as to how this serious problem can be solved. If I may take the liberty of saying so, my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition runs some danger of leaving the impression on the country that he is more concerned with making political capital out of this problem than he is with finding a solution for it. I do hope, Sir, that when the committee come to consider this matter, they will approach it free from any spirit of that kind.
There are a great many matters that have to be settled in connection with the national railways. I shall not at this moment, because I do not think I should be strictly in Order to do so, attempt to discuss them, but when I face this fact, that last year our national railways lost $49,000,000, that this year the taxpayers of Canada are called upon to put up $70,000,000 to make good the fixed charges and operating deficit on the national roads, when I contemplate, as was indeed mentioned in this House the other evening that the loss for the coming year may be even greater, I am impressed with the gravity of the situation. To my mind the solution of this railway problem constitutes one of the greatest problems that this country has been called upon to solve in the last fifty years, and it cannot be solved unless it is approached by all with the single-minded purpose of finding the best solution of it. It must be approached as a business proposition. We are called upon to pay in Federal taxes in this country $582,000,000, for that is the amount the Government have placed in the Estimates now before Parliament, and there are still the Supplementary Estimates to be brought down; I venture to say that if the total burden of taxation on the Canadian people could be estimated-I have made no close estimate of it, because I have not had the facilities for doing so-I think it would be found that for federal, provincial, municipal, and school purposes the Canadian people are to-day paying little less than $1,000,000,000 a year. On top of that, we have annually to send out of this country from $225,000,000 to $250,000,000' for interest on investments in Canada from abroad. Whe,n we take all these facts into consideration, we cannot escape the gravity of the situation. I do hope that the members who compose this committee, when they get to work, will sit down with the single-minded purpose of finding the best possible solution for this question. And if they do, they can find it. There is no question so difficult that it cannot be solved, but this question can only be solved if we approach it with the high purpose and in the spirit which I am convinced the Canadian people are demanding of this Parliament to-day.
Right hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (King's, N.S.) : Mr. Speaker, I regard this motion which has been proposed by the Prime Minister as a very important one, but not altogether for the reasons which have been advanced by some hon. members who have addressed the House. There has

been from time to time, especially during the present session, the question raised as to the amount and character of information with respect to the operation and management of the Canadian National system of railways that ought to be afforded to the House of Commons in the public interest. I think every hon. gentleman who has addressed the House has realized that this is a question of very considerable concern not only to this Parliament but to the people of this country. The hon. member (Mr. Crerar) who has just addressed the House spoke in that sense the other day, and again this afternoon. I entirely agreed with the view which he expressed on both occasions, that if you are to drag the details of management of this system of railways into the discussions of this Parliament in every conceivable way, or even into the discussions of a committee of this House appointed for this purpose, you would not only place the operation of the system under a very grave handicap, but also find it exceedingly difficult to obtain a man with the requisite ability at the head of the management.
The next thing I have to say as to the position taken by my hon. friend the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is this: He apparently is of the opinion that you ought to be able to do immediately in committee what, according to his own judgment, it would not be proper to do in the House of Commons. But I should like to remind him that if you once make these matters the property of a committee of this House you make them at once the property of the House itself, and every question which in his judgment ought not to be raised in this House would naturally come before the House, for the reason that it would have been raised and investigated by the committee. Therefore, I am disposed to think, with all respect, that the position which he took the other day in the House was the correct one, although not altogether consistent with the position he has taken to-day.
I regard this committee as of the highest possible importance. It is in the first place to define a principle which will be for the guidance not only of this Parliament but perhaps of other parliaments in the years to come. It is to define a principle according to which the Government of the day will be relieved from the invidious position of saying that this information may be accorded because it is in the public interest but that some other information shall not be accorded because it is not in that interimSir Robert Borden.]
est. I am sure my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) made it clear, both the other day and to-day, that he does not regard it as right or proper that the Government of this country should be the sole judge in that respect; and I certainly understood, when this motion was proposed the other day, and further, when it was moved this afternoon, that the purpose of the committee was not in the first place to make an investigation, but was, first of all, to define a principle, and thereafter the committee would proceed to make its investigation according to the principle so stated and fixed. It seems to me that the public interest would be perfectly and absolutely guarded if that were carried out, and it can certainly be carried out under the resolution as proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister. But for the moment I am at a loss to see how it could be carried out if the House were to adopt the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). That amendment is based upon a principle, stated very frankly by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), that every item and every detail with regard to the operation of the Canadian National system of railways shall be brought up, and if necessary taken up in the House.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the right hon.
gentleman permit me to interrupt him? I did not state that they should necessarily be brought up, or taken up in the House. I pointed out that in respect of other departments we did not bring such matters up unless some emergency arose.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They "may" be brought up.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly they may be
brought up.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: "May" be?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose it is hardly worth while to confer upon a committee a power which it is not intended that that committee shall exercise. If we are to give power to the committee, our action to that end is surely in vain if the committee is not to exercise that power. It is intended that the committee shall exercise the power given it, and, moreover, it would be its duty so to do. I therefore venture to think that the proposal presented to the House by the Prime Minister is along right and sane lines, namely, to confer upon the committee, in the first instance, the

power and duty to establish a principle as to the information which may properly be brought down in the public interest, and then, having dealt with that question, to come to the House if need be for such further powers as will ensure that principle being carried into effect. So far as I am concerned, I propose to support the resolution which has been moved by the Prime Minister and to vote against the amendment proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, for the reason that the investigation ought not to precede the definition of the extent to which the committee shall go, but that the definition should first be made and then the investigation proceeded with along the line so fixed.
I should like to add one word further. There are many aspersions cast in these days upon the principle of national ownership, and very many gloomy forebodings as to what the future of the Canadian National system of railways will be. The efficient management of the Canadian National Railways will be a test of Canadian democracy, and I have a very confident hope that the spirit and intent of the Canadian democracy will make that management efficient. At the present time it is beyond question that we have a greater railway mileage in this country than our population can very well sustain. We embarked upon a project of three transcontinental railways with a small population-I think the United States had a population of forty millions before they embarked on the project of a second transcontinental line. We have not too great mileage for our area, although it is out of proportion to our population. But is there any hon. gentleman in this House, who has given attentive consideration to the question and who will not reach the conclusion that when our population doubles, when we have eighteen millions of people instead of nine millions, the Canadian National system of railways, if operated intelligently and efficiently, and free from partisan interference in the meantime, will be a great national asset in the years to come? I have no more doubt about that than I have of my own existence, and I hope-in this I echo the words of my hon. friend the member for Marquette-that both sides of the House, all parties in the House, will join in a sincere and earnest effort to give to that great system of railways the efficient, honest and unbiased administration that will make it a national asset of enormous value in the years to come.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, when introducing his statement on the financial condition of our railways for the operating year ending 1920 the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) invited suggestions and co-operation from both sides of the House as to the best methods of extricating the system from the difficulties into which it had become involved. But in order to come to his assistance and to render him the help of which he stands so much in need, we require the information which we have sought to obtain by the many questions we have placed on the Order Paper. To some of these questions answers have been forthcoming, but as to the balance we have been refused any information. We have also made other attempts to obtain particulars. A resolution was introduced by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the effect that documents and letters should be produced and witnesses summoned to inform the House in relation to our national railways. Later on the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) introduced a resolution to appoint a committee with full powers to summon witnesses and collect all necessary data. The Government prevailed on the hon. member to withdraw his motion and promised themselves to introduce a resolution for the creation of such a committee as that suggested by him. But, Sir, the resolution which is now the subject matter of this discussion will not fulfil the purpose that the hon. gentleman had in view. Far from giving to the House the required information, this resolution is one of those numerous side-tracking devices of the hon. Minister of Railways to dodge the issue and prevent the information sought from being laid before the House.
We have been accused this afternoon of introducing party politics into this matter. I think, Sir, that no accusation was less deserved by the Opposition. I do not believe there is a single hon. member, and surely not one on this side of the House, who is not desirous of treating this matter on broad national lines with a view to finding the best methods of getting the country out of this serious difficulty. I do not believe there, is a single member on this side of the House who is not sincerely anxious to help the Government, and who would not be glad to-day to be able to congratulate

the hon. minister on a profitable operation of the road during the past year. But the financial report presented by him is appalling. It shows that we are face to face with a deficit of at least $70,000,000. without taking into account $75,000,00 of bonds issued for the renewal of the rolling stock; and if we are to accept the statements of some of the employees the deficit is really $120,000,000 or $130,000,000. To any lover of his country this distressing situation immediately removes the question from the sphere of party politics. It can be treated only in the light of our national interests. And notwithstanding the taunts that the Opposition has been playing a party game on this great question, I am going to deal with it purely and simply in the light of our national interests.
To my mind, Sir, the crux of the whole question is not whether we shall derive any political gain by discussing it, but whether we can ascertain the best methods of helping the Government to get out of the difficulties in which they have become involved. To help the Government what must we have? We must have full information; the House must be put in possession of all the facts. How can we judge the question otherwise? We sit to-day as a tribunal. We are the representatives of the electors of this country, who are the shareholders of our national railways, and the Minister , of Railways, representing in this House the management of the system, has laid before us a financial statement which discloses a tremendous deficit.
Comparisons are made between the national railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. My hon. friends opposite say that they will not give us any fuller details than the Canadian Pacific Railway management would be willing to give to their shareholders. Sir, the position of the directorate of a company which comes before its shareholders with such a statement as that presented by the Minister of Railways is quite different from that of the directorate of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has presented to its shareholders a financial statement showing a substantial surplus on the year's operations, the result of sound and progressive management. Were the minister in a position to lay before us a financial statement similar to that of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the House and the people might congratulate him and rest assured* that the administration of the railways was of a satisfactory character. But the conditions are very different. I do not believe that 
the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific would be satisfied with the manner in which that road was managed if the directorate laid before them a financial statement similar to that submitted by the Minister of Railways. I think they would require some information; I think they would press the directorate for fuller details than those which have been submitted to us. But when the Government refused to the House the other day the information of which it was in need, public sentiment was aroused; from one end of the country to the other newspapers friendly to the Government took up the question and intimated that such a condition should not prevail; that the Government should lay before the people, through the House of Commons, all information necessary to enable the legislators to find a remedy for the great evil which existed.
The right hon. gentleman has felt the pulse of public opinion. He says to-day: I am desirous that all information that is required shall be laid on the Table, but there is some information which we cannot give, which it would be against the national interest to ippke public; therefore we will appoint a committee and instruct it to make inquiries as to what information should be made available to the House. ,
This committee will not be instructed to call witnesses in respect to the management of the railway. The Minister of Justice, answering that point, says that they will. Well, paragraph 4 of the resolution says that the committee shall have the right to examine witnesses under oath, to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time. Sir, for an hon. gentleman who was several years on the bench and who is to-day Minister of Justice of Canada, I think his legal interpretation of the resolution is not to be commended. I am sure that the right hon. gentleman did not read the resolution aright. I am sure that he did not deliberately attempt to lead the House into error. But he did make an error. The reference as it reads on the Order Paper does not assign to the committee the duty of investigating the management of the Canadian National railways; they will be entitled to summon witnesses and call for papers, but only on such questions as may involve the determination of what information concerning the Canadian National railways and shipping should be furnished to the House. It is quite clear that the committee will not investigate the management of the Canadian National railways. It will simply report to the House what informa-

tion the House should seek, and as has been suggested by one of the ministers, if the actual information is to be obtained by the committee, a further step will have to be taken to that end by the grant of further powers. The method adopted by the Government is the surest method of avoiding what they want to avoid, the laying before Parliament of any information whatever. The committee will sit from time to time. Their investigation may be quite protracted. After they have sat for months; after the Government have passed all their Estimates and have advanced their legislation to a sufficient degree, the committee will lay on the Table a report advising the House to seek such and such information. Then a full discussion will take place in the House as to what further reference should be made to that committee, and after another protracted discussion the committee will be instructed to summon witnesses and obtain further information-but by that time prorogation will be at hand. I am afraid, therefore, that the information which we now require to enable us to form a sound judgment upon the question before the House will not be forthcoming during the present session. Sir, if the Government are absolutely sincere in their purpose they should not hesitate to accept the proposal of the leader of the Opposition. If they really want to lay the required information before the House during this session, now is the time to refer the matter to the proposed committee and to give them such powers as will enable them to collect the information. Under the method adopted by the Government, however, such a course will be impossible.
In discussing the resolution this afternoon, two words fell from the lips of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) which made clearer the real purpose underlying the resolution now before the House. He said: "Information was sought and we refused it; we take fully responsibility for doing so." But mark his following words. "But not to appear arbitrary we now propose this committee." What did the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) say? He said: "Before this committee we will bring the management who will say why the information should not be given." You have there in two words the whole principle underlying the policy of the Government in presenting that resolution. The Minister of Finance says: "We refuse the information; we take the responsibility of that refusal; but to save appearances, not
to appear arbitrary, we propose a committee to report on what information will be given." Then the Minister of Railways says: "We will bring the management of the Canadian National Railways before the committee to say why the information should not be given." Therefore, the committee, after it has concluded its work, will not be in a position to give such information to the House. Is it not a farce to treat such a serious matter in such a light way? If the committee were armed with full powers, it could judge what information the management should lay before the House. Why not entrust it with that work? As the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) said, we now instruct the committee to lay down the principles which will direct the operations of this House in respect of our Canadian National railways. If we can instruct a committee to lay down the principles which will direct our deliberations on such an important matter, why should we not entrust it with the work of collecting this information. This committee would be nonpartisan; it would be, I am sure, willing to -give to the Government all possible assistance and to collect such information as would enable the House to judge soundly and fairly the big questions which are at present involved. We knew that information was not forthcoming. The Minister of Railways, who is very busy at present-


John Dowsley Reid: I am listening to every word.


Thomas Vien: I hope so.


Joseph Archambault: With only one eye open.


Thomas Vien: Not with both ears anyway.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, with both ears, and I have my eyes open at the same time.


Thomas Vien: The Minister is really a
marvel; he says that he can listen to two members at the same time. The minister told the House this afternoon that he had refused no information; that he had given an answer to all questions put. Why then should he object to give to the committee which will be entrusted with the work, whatever information that committee may require? But the minister was not accurate in his statement. There were put on the Order Paper quite a few questions which could not be answered. I put some questions that the minister did not answer, and

I am going to refer to them. But the greatest fault of the minister is not that he did not answer some questions; other questions he answered, but did not answer correctly. Of the two, I do not know which I prefer

his refusal to answer questions or the incorrectness of the answers that he gave. I put on the Order Paper this question hy which I was trying to obtain some information as to financial results per division:
1.	How many divisional points are there on the Government railways, and what are their names.
2.	In each of the said divisional points, during 1919 and 1920, what were gross receipts, the operating costs, and the surplus or deficit?
This was a pertinent question. The Minister of Finance this afternoon complained of the fact that we did not inquire as to the cause of the deficit. My question was in relation thereto; in an endeavour to find out where the deficit came from, I tried to obtain from the minister the results by divisions. In answer he said:
Railway accounting does not provide for earnings being shown for each divisional point.
My information was to the contrary. I went back to my informant, because I had seen financial statements so drawn, and my informant said: "Well, you were wrong in your question; a divisional point is purely and simply the chief place of a division." For instance, Fraserville is the chief place or divisional point of one division. The same is true of Riviere du Loup. Parent is a divisional point, and "the old foxy minister," my informant said, "took advantage of the form of your question, and he did not answer because you asked the financial statement for each divisional point. Put your question otherwise." I did so; I put my question in this way:
1.	How many divisions, or operating divisions,-
So that the matter might be quite clear to the minister.
-are there on the Canadian National railways, and what are their names?
2.	What was the result of operations for each of the said divisions in 1919 and 1920?
I was not more lucky. The answer was this:
Railway accounting does not provide for receipts, expenses, surplus or deficits being shown by divisions.
The minister is wrong. This is a falsehood. He did not wittingly answer so, hut I tell him it is a falsehood. He told me that the accounting was not kept by divisions; I tell him that it is-


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, as the hon.
member states, the answer that I gave was that given by the management from the head office. When this committee meets my hon. friend will have the opportunity of getting further information, and I am sure it will be proved to him that my answer was absolutely correct.


Thomas Vien: I shall prove that it was
not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I hope the hon. member will bear in mind some remarks from the Chair in the earlier stages of this debate. I am sure he will agree with me that there has been no disposition on the part of the Chair unduly to restrict the discussion. I would ask the hon. member to indicate clearly how the line he is now pursuing has reference to the question before the Chair, because obviously it would be inadvisable, inexpedient, and unprofitable to discuss railway problems in general on a motion for a committee.


Thomas Vien: I have strictly adhered to
your ruling, Sir, as laid down at the opening of the discussion. I am following closely on the footsteps of the hon. minister, who said that he had refused no information, and am trying to make clear to the House that he has refused information in some cases, and in others given wrong information. Moreover, Sir, during the time you were replaced in the Chair, the hon. ministers notwithstanding your ruling, trespassed on many grounds on which we did not intend to enter. I would not like their statements to be spread broadcast throughout the country unchallenged, and what I am now trying to do is to challenge some of the statements of the hon. Minister of Railways. I shall try, however, to confine myself closely to one or two points.
There was, to my mind, a very serious condition of affairs in connection with the Canadian National railways in the northern part of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The condition was this. A number of railway conductors were operating trains in northern Quebec and northern Ontario, running through a country entirely settled with French-speaking people. Most of the passengers on these trains were lumber-jacks, going to and from the camps, and the farming population, most of whom could not speak English. The conductors could not speak French. Moreover, my information was that a considerable number of these conductors were drunk half the time.


Joseph Archambault: In Ontario?


Thomas Vien: In northern Ontario and
northern Quebec. I tried to obtain from the minister the names of these conductors, not to intimate to the House that they were drunkards, but so that our information might be complete and be of some assistance in discussing railway matters. From Quebec westward there are a number of stations which have no resident station agents. The result is that the passengers cannot purchase their tickets until they are on the train. Then one of two things happens. Either they pay the conductor on the train when he is drunk and he puts the money in his pocket, or he does not collect the fare at all. My information is that in two specific instances people boarded the Canadian National train at Cochrane and came down to Quebec without having their fares collected, and that in another case the conductor was drunk. So in order to obtain data which would be of some information to the House I put the following question on the Order Paper:
How many railway conductors are employed on the Government railways in Quebec?
The answer was 296. I asked also:
What are their names?
The answer was:
It is not considered to be in the public interest to publish the names of these conductors.
You see my point, Mr. Speaker. The minister said this afternoon that he had never refused any information, but here, in reply to my question, he says that it is not considered in the public interest to publish the names of these conductors. I say that it was in the public interest to know the names of these conductors so that we might find out by personal investigation, as no official information was forthcoming in the House, whether or not these conductors were reliable, and whether or not they should be dismissed. So on these two points it will be seen that the minister did not give full information to the House.
The deficits of which we now complain are due to several conditions. Some of these conditions apply generally to all railways. The general industrial and commercial conditions, for instance, affect the railways in the United States lust as they do the railways in Canada, and affect private-owned railways just as they do public-owned railways. Then such factors as increased pay-rolls, and increased cost of material, affect all railways, hut these conditions will re-adjust themselves when normal times return. Wages will be readjusted, as well as the cost of material,
but there is another cause of our deficits which it will be more difficult to remove.
I refer to the question of management, and this also involves the question of state ownership. This question was touched upon slightly this afternoon by the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), who tried to justify state ownership. It was not our intention to discuss state ownership tonight, but I do not think we should allow his statements to go unchallenged. There are in this country friends of state ownership and there are also enemies of state ownership. The friends of state ownership belong mainly to the western provinces and to the province of Ontario. The other provinces are more conservative in this sense, and are opposed to state ownership. The friends of state ownership, Mr. Speaker, have no greater enemies than those who have introduced the principle into our legislation and those who were entrusted with the management of our national railways. If state ownership had been given a fair trial it is possible that we might have adjusted our national conditions to this new venture; but the management which has operated since the introduction of this policy will make, I think, for the prompt return to private ownership. It was quite easy to forecast that the present situation could not be avoided under the management that was provided for our national railways.
How did this situation come about? The Canadian Northern became insolvent and we took it over and nationalized it; and after that we entrusted the management of the Canadian National railways to the very group of men who had run the Canadian Northern into bankruptcy. They had not been able successfully to manage their own property, but when we took it from their hands as a private concern and assumed all their obligations, we put them in charge of the railways as public property. And that is a point intimately connected with the question now before the House. We want to have full and precise information as to how this group of men came to manage our railways in such a way as to create a deficit of $48,000,000 last year, $70,000,000 this year, and a predicted deficit of $100,000,000 next year. Mr. Speaker, the whole management has been altogether unwise, and no business man in this country could have followed a more foolish course. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) tells us that we shall have a committee before which we shall have the management of the national railways to

tell us why the information should not be forthcoming. Of course, they will try to convince Parliament that it is not in the public interest for them to submit any information. They have to hide the ways and means by which these deficits are created, and naturally they will try to prevent any information tending to throw light on the subject from getting to the public knowledge. We want the management of our Canadian National railways to give us, not, as the Minister of Railways says, reasons why information should not be forthcoming, but an account of their stewardship and reasons why they have not managed our railways to better advantage. We want them to give us some satisfactory explanation of the deficits that are making such inroads into the public treasury. All true Canadian patriots are greatly concerned over the state of affairs to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Vien: They are very much exercised over conditions, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the senseless laughter I hear on the other side. I see one hon.
9 p.m. member laughing. Well, the situation is too desperate for any serious-minded man to indulge in laughter.


Andrew Ross McMaster: He does not sit on our side.


Thomas Vien: The people are worried to see our national heritage being squandered, and stolen, and wrecked, and yet an hon. member can find something in the situation to laugh at. Evidently the facts do not appeal to the hon. gentleman in their true light. However, he has given us the measure of his intelligence and his patriotism. Sir, those Canadians, whose ancestors settled in this country generations ago, and battled with adversity that future generations might have a country in which they could live happily and in prosperity, cannot look with equanimity upon the wreckage of the early hopes of their forefathers. It is painful to see our national heritage jeopardized in this way by the Government, who see nothing wrong in entrusting the management of our railways to the very men who ran their own property into bankruptcy, men who are evidently above Parliament and who can refuse this House the information of which it is badly in need. It is high time that we appointed a committee, not for the purposes of party politics but solely for the national welfare, who will work effectively

and devise some policy that might extricate the country from its present difficulties. It is useless appointing a committee - merely to report to Parliament as to what information should be sought and what should not. We must appoint a committee armed with powers and able to summon witnesses and conduct a thorough investigation, behind closed doors if necessary, but an investigation that will provide us something as a basis for intelligent discussion and sound legislation. In my opinion the resolution is purely and simply a sham; it is nothing but camouflage and will only serve to distract the attention of the House from the real issue under discussion. It will create a committee whose report will be purely and simply a "whitewash" for the Government, and will preclude this House from getting the information which it badly needs. On these grounds I cannot support the resolution of the Government, and I think that if they were sincere they would gladly welcome the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. For all the reasons I have given I am ready to support the amendment and to vote the resolution down.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford) :: I have been a strong advocate of the appointment of the proposed committee for some time, although I confess that the reference is not worded exactly as I would have worded it. At the same time it affords the committee an opportunity, especially under the fourth clause, to make a great many inquiries. The annual report of the Board of Management will be laid before the committee, and I am inclined to think that by the time the committee have inquired into its contents they will have gathered a great deal of information. I have no hesitation whatever in thinking that should the committee, when organized, find that the reference restricts their investigations in any way, and they ask the House to enlarge their powers, the House will be very glad to meet their wishes. Whether they will be able to formulate a report satisfactory to themselves will depend upon the information they bring out during the inquiry. I have no doubt whatever that the reference is quite wide enough to enable them to get all the information they require, at am rate to commence with. I am not in favour of appointing counsel for the committee or of bringing traction experts to testify. In the majority of cases traction experts, in my judgment, would talk over the heads of the committee. I take it that

the committee will consist of business men selected from both sides of the House, and it is the operation of the national railways that will form the subject of inquiry. The members of the committee will be perfectly competent, in my judgment, to elicit the necessary information without the guidance either of counsel or traction experts. Should this not prove to be the case it will be the easiest thing in the world for the committee to agree that they need legal and technical advice and upon a representation to that effect the House will, no doubt, comply with their wishes.
I have sat on a good many special committees and the experience gained in that way leads me to support the present proposition. Through the medium of a committee information can be obtained very promptly without consuming hours of talk. If the House itself were to undertake to probe the details of the management of the national system of railways, and were to spend an hour or two, or a whole afternoon, in discussing why a station master was dismissed, or why ties were not laid in certain spots at a certain length, or why the management did not buy coal from John Jones in place of Thomas Oliver, or similar questions, Parliament might just as well sit for the whole year, instead of for only a few months. For the reasons I have given I am very much in favour of a committee being appointed, and I am quite sure their deliberations will result in the presentation of information that will be very valuable, even if it does not reduce the deficit on the operations of this railway system, as I hope it will.
I agree with everything that has been said as to the desirability of carrying on the inquiry from a non-partisan standpoint, and I was sorry to hear one hon. member state this afternoon that the appointment of such a committee even under the powers given by the reference, would mean that there would be a majority and a minority report, ^rsonally, I do not think that observation should have been made. In my opinion predictions of that kind should not be indulged in. None of those who are chosen as members of the committee should be influenced by such a spirit as that, because it is useless for hon. gentlemen to become members of this committee if they are going to make up their minds in advance as to what conclusions they shall reach. In my opinion, those hon. gentlemen who are honoured with a seat upon the committee should go to their deliberations with open minds, they should
discuss any matters which may come before them in a quiet and businesslike way, and make their report to the House after due consideration. I hope that is the policy that will be followed in this case.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: I am in favour of the amendment and intend to vote for it, my reason therefor being that I feel it is something that will appeal to the people of this country, whereas the resolution of the Prime Minister cannot appeal to any person who has made a study of the railway and shipping problem as it presents itself to-day in Canada. The resolution has, to my mind, been rendered ineffective at the very moment of its birth. No matter what conclusion is arrived at it is not going to give satisfaction, because it appears to me to be something which is made purely for the purpose of shelving the important question now before the House. For instance, the first clause of this resolution states that the proposed committee will inquire into:
What information as to operation of Canadian National railways and shipping as conducted by the Board of Directors and Management should, in the public interest, be brought down _in Parliament on Questions, Motion for Production of Papers, or otherwise.
What information should be brought down to Parliament? I ask myself how the people outside are going to view this highly important question. What information should be brought down to Parliament on "questions, motion for production of papers, or otherwise?" I venture to say that not one person outside really knows what that means. To parliamentarians, of course, it simply means that the Government is asking a committee of this House to tell them what they ought tt>
do. The Government practically abdicates its functions and asks a committee-the majority of whom will be from their side of the House-to tell them what they shall do. Well, Mr. Speaker, water never rises above its own level. How is it possible that this committee, the creatures of the Government, can tell the Government what information shall be brought down to Parliament "on question, motion for production of papers, or otherwise"? The second paragraph says:
When, by what method, and under what conditions, if any, should such information be given,-
"If any." That is simply placing a fence around the committee before any question is submitted to it at all. And I ask again



what the people outside the House will think of that. The third paragraph reads:
What system of auditing should he adopted, and what extent of detail should be given in the Annual Report.
I feel like saying, as did a celebrated character in Shakespeare, "A plague on both your houses." What does the public care about auditing and the extent of detail of the report? They will look at what is called the "demnition total." They will not care what system of auditing has been adopted. Then the fourth and final paragraph:
Whether and for what purposes the said committee should he continued, and that for the above purposes and for such other purposes as the committee deem in the public interest there be referred to said committee the Annual Report of the Board of Directors.
Just imagine! We have the annual report of the Board of Directors before us now, but we are still in Egyptian darkness with regard to the entire situation. Yet we expect that a committee which we are going to appoint-is going to study the annual report of the Board of Directors and tell us what we shall do! Well, my experience of the annual report of any board of directors is that usually it is a recital of what the board does not do rather than of what it does. We have the annual report of the Board of Directors here, we have a Government, at the head of which is one of the most astute and agile minds in the country, and we know something at least about auditing and details,-and yet this is what the committee are going to study! In my opinion we have wasted an entire day of valuable time at a considerable cost to this country, and we have arrived nowhere.
Now, this amendment which is proposed by the leader of the Opposition contains something constructive. It reads:
That such committee shall have power to inquire into all matters in any way relating to the railways owned or controlled by the Government of Canada whether under the direction of the Department of Railways and Canals or under any corporation in which the Government are stockholders, whether relating to the construction or operation, from the date of the appointment by the Government of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Northern Railway Company down to the present time; and similarly to inquire into all matters in any way connected with the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, either in respect of the construction or operation of the ships, and that such committee shall have power to send for papers, persons, and records, to engage counsel-

That appeals to me.
-and transportation experts, and to make such reports and recommendations from time to time as, in their judgment, wTill be calculated to promote the public interest.
Put these two documents side by side, the proposed resolution and the amendment, and ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, which will appeal to the man in the street, to the people outside-because, after all they are the people who pay the piper, and surely they have a right to call the tune. I venture to say that if any hon. member on the other side of the House were to back up this resolution on the hustings proposed by the Prime Minister and ask that it be preferred to the amendment, he would be considered a candidate for a lunatic asylum. There is no comparison between the two. One proposes to do something constructive, to get at the root of the trouble, to explain to the public what is the difficulty; and the other is a sterile resolution which, as far as I can judge, appears to have been drawn by the hon. Minister of Justice-I recognize his hand.
We are told, and told rather seriously, that it is not in the public interest that everything should be known in regard to the operation and management of these two enterprises. When a person is sick and goes to a physician, he tells the physician what it is that he is suffering from, and the physician then diagnoses his case and prescribes the remedy. But suppose the patient were to say to the physician, "I suffer from this, that and the other thing but I also suffer in another way, and I cannot tell you what it is because I feel that you may possibly lose confidence in me and not consider me to be such a gentleman as you thought me before, for telling you what I am suffering from." How is it possible, Mr. Speaker, to diagnose a case and prescribe the necessary medicine unless you know what the patient is suffering from? Yet our friends on the opposite side of the House tell us: "We will only let you have such information as in the public interest we can let you have." What is the public interest in this case? The public interest is the interest of the public in this country, the men who pay this $70,000,000 or $80,000,000 a year deficit, and who are going probably to have to pay $100,000,000 next year; they are the people who form the public, and they are interested in knowing all the facts. The- public interest, as I understand from this resolution, is that of the management of the national railways. Apparently it is feared that some information may come out which may not be favour-

able to the management; they are the people who want to save their skins.
Now, I challenge my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House to give me one instance of what they consider would be damaging to the public if it came out in the investigation before this committee. What is this insidious trouble that is preventing the Government from bringing it before the public? We are the public, we represent the public, and we say we are satisfied to know what it is all about. We want to know what the difficulty is. We care not at all about the interests of the management of the system; we want to know what it is that this line is suffering from which results in such enormous deficits every year. I challenge the Government again to tell me what possible item could there be which might not be in the public interest if it came out. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) says that the Canadian Pacific may copy our methods! As we say in French, C'est pour rire; or in English, it is to laugh. As my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) said toeday, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company copy the secrets of success, they never copy the secrets of failure. What is there in the Canadian National Railway system which if to-day given out to the public would enure to the advantage of the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other company or person?
When a person is suffering from the dread disease of tuberculosis, Mr. Speaker, the doctor prescribes sunshine and fresh air, and that is what you want here. We are suffering from hemorrhages at the rate of $70,000,000, and we want sunshine and fresh air to cure us. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, was ever accomplished in the way of a public enterprise by hole-in-the-corner methods. These gentlemen on the other side are merely temporary stewards of the affairs of this country; they are here today and to-morrow they will be elsewhere. But the people are here all the time, and they are demanding in no uncertain tones that a full investigation be made into the affairs of these enterprises, in order that they may ascertain whether it is possible to stop this ensanguination; whether it is possible to get these government lines on the proper track in the same way as other successful lines.
Will the Government tell me in what possible way we can be in a worse position than we are to-day? It is declared by those on the other side who are supposed to know that the public interest would not be served
if certain information was brought out. Well, even if it were brought out, would the result be the loss of more than seventy or eighty millions a year? Should we lose then ninety millions a year? I say that it would be well if we lost one hundred millions a year if the result would be to enable us to put a finger on the sore spot and obtain some relief from the situation.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar)-I do not see him in the House this evening-took high moral ground this afternoon. He spoke words of wisdom, and his manner of uttering them was such as a statesman would be supposed to employ in the delivering of weighty opinions. He told us that he had a complaint, not against the Government who were charged with the responsibility of the operation of these railways and who are the chief offenders in this matter, but against the leader of the Opposition. He complained that the leader of the Opposition had put before the House no constructive suggestion in regard to the operation of these two Government enterprises. Well, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that he should not have passed so lightly over the head of the Prime Minister, who, after all, is the most serious offender in this matter. How is it that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways threw themselves on the mercy of the country when in the House a few days ago they told us they were willing to receive suggestions from any and all sources in regard to the operation of these Government enterprises? Was that a constructive policy, Mr. Speaker? Why did the hon. member for Marquette not deem it necessary to advert to this so-called constructive policy on the part of the Government? Then, strange to relate, the hon. member passed over himself, the leader of a party which, though not yet great, is potentially great, a party which at least hopes to be great and hopes very shortly to be seated on the other side. That is a very noble ambition; I am sure that many of the people are of the opinion that anything would be better than the aggregation we have on the Government benches at the moment. Well, the hon. member for Marquette did not suggest any constructive policy. He did say a few weeks ago, when he was discussing this subject that the only solution of the problem now before the country was to revalue the assets of the national railways. That was the constructive policy which the Agrarian party put forward. Well, what is the use of revaluing this property? What purpose would be served? I venture to say that if

it were suggested that a provision for the revaluation of the property should be inserted in this resolution, the Prime Minister would not allow it to go in, on the ground that it is not in the public interest that a revaluation should be made. The only ostensible reason why the property should be revalued at the moment is that we might make it enticing to some party or syndicate who would went to purchase it on the basis of that revaluation. Does my hon. friend from Marquette want to sell out so soon to a private syndicate? It is only a few months since the whole of the aggregation sitting close to us-but not of us-were proclaiming in the loudest tones that the only salvation of this country was public ownership. Now the leader of their party states that he wants a revaluation of the lines. This is his constructive policy, and then he puts it up to the leader of the Opposition to declare the constructive policy of the Liberal party in this regard. Now, I have a great regard for the leader of the Opposition. I have followed him and I hope to follow him for some considerable time. But I am not prepared to say that he is a superman, and it would certainly require more than an ordinary human being to bring some order out of the chaos which at present prevails, at least until we have before us such facts and figures and such information as would be brought out by a committee operating as the leader of the Opposition suggests. "Are you guilty or not guilty?" asks the magistrate of a prisoner in the dock. The prisoner replied: "Well, how can I tell until I have heard the evidence?" That is the position in which we all find ourselves. We would like to hear the evidence; we would like to know something concerning this matter before we find the Government guilty, although we have very shrewd suspicions that they are guilty.
In 1916 I was one of the counsel employed in connection with the Meredith-Duff Commission appointed to inquire into matters affecting shell contracts with, which the names of several ministers of the Crown had been connected in some way. The matter was brought up in the House by Mr. Kyte, I believe, in a very strong speech. The Government decided, of course, that no investigation would be granted, but within a week or ten days, and after hearing what the country had to say, they retracted their steps and were glad indeed to grant a commission with the fullest powers of investigation. No question was raised about the public or private interest, al-

though it is to be borne in mind that we were investigating the matter of munitions, of shells, of explosives, in the midst of the war. We were obliged to bring before the commission of inquiry some matters the disclosure of which might have been considered at that time to be highly dangerous, in view of the fact that all this information was going abroad to the enemy. Information was brought out concerning the places at which these shells were being manufactured, the quantities that were being turned out, how they were being delivered across the ocean, the prices that were being paid for them, and various technical details in that connection,-all of which, it could have been said at that time, might furnish valuable information to the enemy. But in view of the fact that the public were demanding this investigation and that the honour of certain members of Parliament was at stake, the fullest and freest investigation was made and a report was submitted accordingly. Now, if during war time we were able to go into such a delicate matter as that to which I have referred, why should information not be given to the House and to the country in regard to the important and momentous question which we are now considering? I venture to say that if a plebiscite were taken on the question whether this information should be given or withheld because its disclosures is not in the public interest, by ninety-nine to one the people of this country would declare that they wanted information of the fullest character no matter what the result would be. They would want us to hew to the line no matter where the chips were to fly. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that we should insist upon the amendment proposed by the leader of the Opposition and refuse to accept the proposal put forward by the Government.
It is evident-and the extent to which this is true is a source of surprise to me- that hon. gentlemen on the other side will follow blindly the lead of the Prime Minister on this question and, as is most probable, vote accordingly. The matter which we are discussing is one of the most important which has come before the country for some considerable time. Probably they feel that they have very little to lose. "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad," and my hon. friends feel that, as long as they last and as long as they occupy the Government benches, they will hang together with their friends on the Canadian National Railway. They alone are the people interested in not disclosing

information. They alone are attempting to burk this inquiry before it is started.


Mr. T. M. M. TWEEDIE (West Calgary) :: Mr. Speaker, the discussion in connection with this resolution has gone pretty far afield, and it has been presented to the House in different forms on many occasions since the opening of the session. While I do not purpose discussing in detail many of the matters which have been referred to, I must ask the indulgence of the House to-night while I refer to one or two matters.
The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his endeavours to bring these matters before the public, has no doubt served a public purpose, and the various discussions which have taken place have been of the utmost importance in that they have impressed upon the people of this country the financial condition in connection with the national railways which are operated by this Government. If the people generally throughout the length and breadth of this land have followed these discussions, there can be hardly a man or a woman in Canada who does not recognize the fact that government operation and government control of railways have resulted in a heavy deficit. Notwithstanding the fact that that information came to the public in connection with the operation in 1919, when there was a deficit of some $45,000,000, I do not believe that there was spread over this country the gloom which hon. members of the Opposition would lead us to believe there was, because, notwithstanding the fact that we had a deficit then this Government has been besieged with requests from every part of the Dominion to carry on to a greater extent public works which were commenced or which were delayed during the war. Not later than January of this year there met in the city of Edmonton the United Farmers of Alberta, and notwithstanding the "blue ruin" which they, the Opposition, pointed out, they have submitted to the Dominion Government a whole series of resolutions in connection with railway construction, insisting and urging the Government still to carry forward with the utmost speed the policy which they have carried on in the past in connection with railway construction. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) must have received a copy of these resolutions and, if so, he will know that the very first thing which they enacted by resolution was:
That, in the opinion of this Union, No. 1 U.F.A., the ti-me has arivefl when, for the best interests of Canada, her railways should be nationalised over all lines.
As regards respect and admiration for the Canadian Pacific railway, the hon. member for Marquette expressed himself clearly in the words of adulation and praise which he uttered in this House this afternoon. The Canadian Pacific railway, as he stated, is a railway which has the best management and operating staff of any railway in the world. With this I quite agree, and would even go farther. The Canadian Pacific railway was a railway which, from the very inception of the road, started its management and operation with such an eminent and capable man as Lord Mount Stephen; it has always maintained this high standard in the selection of its officials and it has attained greater degrees of excellence in its management and operation than has ever been attained by any other railway in this country. But while the hon. member for Marquette took great care this afternoon to express to the House his views in relation to the Canadian Pacific railway he stopped short of the real vital question, with which the people of Canada are concerned. Members of the House directly opposite us [DOT] say that they are opposed to the nationalization and government operation and control of railways. The hon. member for Marquette, who stands up in this House and lauds the management of the Canadian Pacific railway and points out that it Is without a peer in this country, was by that same convention which passed that resolution, approving of the immediate nationalization of all railways, approved as leader of the Agrarian party in the Dominion of Canada. Let him state in this House whether or not he, as leader of the Agrarian party, is in favour of the immediate nationalization of the Canadian Pacific railway and let him make his position clear to the people. Personally, I have no hesitation	whatever in expressing my
views	in regard to that road.
This Government should make its decision absolutely clear that it has no intention to undertake in any way, shape or form the nationalization of the Canadian Pacific railway, but that it is its opinion that we should keep our hands off one of the best organized, best administered and best managed railway corporations in the world. We shall be pleased to have the leader of the Agrarian party state clearly, irrespective of the views of the party which he leads throughout Western Canada, what his views are in connection with that problem.
We have heard a great deal about this deficiency in connection with the operation

and management of the Canadian National railways; but the proper comparison has never been made, and I trust that it will be made at some time before the close of this session of Parliament. Hon. members opposite have taken a deficit of $45,000,000 last year and a deficit of some $70,000,000 this year, and they say that, because there was a deficit in each of those two years and because there probably will be a deficit next year, this country is facing blue ruin, because it has taken over the operation of the national railways. If they wish to be fair in that question, their comparison should be made, not with the Canadian Pacific as it exists at the present time, but with the Canadian Pacific when, some thirty or forty years ago, it was a pioneer railway in this country. We all recall that, when that great organization, of which we are all now so proud and which we lend our voice in this House to praise, was passing through pioneer days in the Dominion of Canada, insolvency faced it, even though under private management, and if the Dominion Government had not come to the aid of that corporation, insolvency would have been its state. There is not in the Dominion of Canada a single railway corporation which has not received aid from the treasury of the Dominion Government, and the time came, in connection with the Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk railway, for us to say whether or not we should still continue giving further aid to those roads, or whether we should take and appropriate them to the Dominion of Canada and spend our money on that which is our property.
A great deal has been said back and forth about the question of government ownership; but the question of government ownership in connection with railways has never come properly and fairly before the House. Government ownership was not the result of the expression of the will of the people; it was not the result of any overwhelming desire on their part that these roads should be taken over; but we found ourselves in a position that we must take these roads over in order to protect the investment of the country.
On a former occasion, when this matter was being discussed, we had the privilege of hearing the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) deliver in this House an address in which he said that the West had been practically purchased by the Dominion; that Western Canada was the vassal of eastern capital; that they were supporting us and that the Dominion treasury wras

being bled for those people. I want to tell the hon. member for Dorchester that Western Canada is no vassal of eastern capital; that Western Canada is not dependent upon Eastern Canada for support; but that Western Canada is delighted to receive the investment of eastern capital, and eastern capitalists are pleased to invest their funds in the West, because they feel that there is no other part of the whole Dominion and very few parts in the world where they can receive better returns for the money they invest than Western Canada.
So far as the railway problem in Western Canada is concerned, they go on to say that these railways have been built for the development of Western Canada, and that as a result we have these deficits growing larger from year to year, and they will grow still larger in the future. But, Mr. Speaker, if at the time these Transcontinental lines were constructed a safe and sane policy had been carried out by the Government under the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, if he had followed the policy which was advocated by the Hon. Andrew G, Blair and had refused to come to the assistance of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, refused to embark upon the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental, we would be absolutely freed from the position in which we find ourselves to-day. If they had confined themselves, as they started out to do, to the construction of railway lines in the Prairie Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I believe that under present conditions every foot of railway in the Dominion of Canada would be self-supr porting, and that there would be no charge against the public treasury for maintenance, operation, or overhead charges in connection with any of the roads. Throughout the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba we must originate practically all the freight which must take care of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Transcontinental and the Canadian National. That is the burden which was unfairly and unjustly imposed on the West. Those roads go through the wilderness of northern Ontario, through the wilderness of Quebec, and through part of the wilderness of the province of New Brunswick. They serve these three eastern provinces, yet hon. gentlemen will get up in this House and charge the deficit on these roads to the three Prairie Provinces, when the roads are their own children, and run through their own territory. I submit that these deficits are not chargeable to the West, but to the three

older provinces, from which came the majority who forced upon the Government the programme which compelled them to build these lines as a'matter of political patronage. But these matters will be gone into at some other time at great length. I just wish to say now that there is not one private road in the United States, I believe, but what has passed through the bankruptcy court, or at all events very few. So far as deficits and the matter of insolvency are concerned, the position which we have in Canada to-day corresponds exactly with that which existed in the United States. I believe that the Government did its duty when it took over the responsibility of the administration of these roads.
I wish to say a few words in connection with the resolution of the Prime Minister which is now before the House. Great exception has been taken to it, and an amendment has been moved by the leader af the Opposition. I wish to point out to the leader of the Opposition the inconsistency of the stand which he as a party leader in this House takes in connection with his amendment. On March 15, we were discussing, at the instance of the leader of the Opposition, the question of the public accounts of this country and he complained bitterly on that occasion that only three volumes of the Auditor General's report had been placed before the House, and that they could not investigate the financial condition of the country until they had the fourth volume. He says, on page 946 of Hansard:	.
Mr. Speaker, before this motion carries I should like to point out to the Government the impossibility of this House proceeding intelligently with a consideration of the Estimates until it has before it the full report of the Auditor General.
He goes on:
A part of that machinery is the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act which has a special provision respecting the presentation to Parliament of the Auditor General's Report.
Then on page 949 he says:
That is the point of which we are complaining at the moment. There is not an opportunity to intelligently discuss these Estimates until we have in its completed form the Auditor General's report of the preceding fiscal year, and until we have several other reports which have already been asked for, and concerning which we can get no definite information from the Government. I think, Sir, that until we get a definite assurance from the Government that we are going to have a proper opportunity of discussing the Estimates with reports in their complete and full form we would not he justified in proceeding at the present moment with the consideration of any portion of those Estimates.
What is his position briefly? He says we cannot have a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee because only three volumes of the Auditor General's Report have been laid upon the Table and we have not got the fourth. We will assume for the purposes of argument that his reasoning on that occasion was just. What do we find his position to be at the present time? Has he any details of the operation of the Canadian National railways? Have there been submitted to the Auditor General or to any one else the detailed accounts of the business of those railways? Why, Sir, that is just what they have been complaining of in this House, complaining that they have not received those details. Yet the hon. gentleman stands up in his place in this House, and notwithstanding the fact that only a short time ago he said, we must have all the details before the committee can intelligently discuss this matter, he says now, let us have a committee to go into all the accounts of the Canadian National railways, when he has not before him one vestige, not one detail, he says, except the report which was laid on the Table. Is he sincere when he says that in the interests of the people of Canada we must investigate the transactions of the Canadian National railways? What is the genius of his mind which on one occasion says, I cannot examine without facts and figures, and on the other occasion says, I do not need anything before me, all I want is the committee? Does this House want any further proof that his amendment means simply and purely one of two things? It means either a fishing excursion in which he wishes to get a little group of men around the table and then produce from his vest pocket or from the vest pocket of some other hon. member, some bit of gossip which he may have picked up on the street and then say to the witness, Tell us all about that. Can it be that that which he has alleged to be the policy of the Government, that which he has so consistently denounced in this House, in alleging the denial on the part of the Government of information to the House of Commons, is the proper course to pursue, or does he wish to lead the people to believe that this House is suppressing information which should be given out? Mr. Speaker, whichever one of these alternatives he accepts, I submit that neither of them should justify this House in supporting the amendment which he has introduced. As between the resolution and the amendment the difference is this: The hon. the Prime Minister says

that this is something new in the history and development of this country, that the operation of transcontinental railways was never before contemplated and that we want instructions. All that the resolution asks is for the committee to determine whether information shall be given, when that information shall be given, and what shall happen in connection with the auditing of the accounts. The leader of the Opposition says, we must have all the information. His amendment is definite, it is conclusive. Mr. Speaker, I submit that this House should appoint that committee to consider the question of whether or not the information should be given. We should call before that committee representatives of the management of the road, in order that they may point out to us the difficulty there would be in making the whole thing public. We should also call before that committee representatives ' the men, in order that they may lay their views before the committee as to what the effects of this publicity would be. These questions should be considered by the committee and reported on to the House.
As to the question of auditing, if my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition wishes to accomplish the purpose which he has in view, it should be accomplished only in connection with the Audit Act and the Consolidated, Revenue Act of this country. There should appear in the public accounts every single dollar of expenditure in connection with that road, and the accounts should be audited and approved by the Auditor General and submitted to the House. Is either of these courses wise? Do we want to allow a committee of this House to investigate every transaction in connection with the railways? Why, a man out in British Columbia may have a team of horses killed and the board may determine what compensation he shall receive; but he may be dissatisfied and he immediately communicates with the member of Parliament representing his constituency qnd that member brings the matter up before the committee. Under such circumstances the whole session of Parliament might be taken up in determining whether or not such people were properly compensated or not. Do you want these questions investigated by that committee? Do you want the committee to go into such matters as, for instance, the removal of a roundhouse at a certain place, the discharge of one of the section hands, the question of a conductor who is drunk on duty or negligent in his duty, the expropriation of a right-of-way,
[Hr. Tweedie.]
and so forth? Do you want every single question of this nature brought before the committee?
I quite agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. La-fortune) in his reference to the hon. mem-[DOT] ber for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). The hon. member for Marquette says that we do not want all these things to be gone into, and that is the reason why he opposes bringing down the papers and documents. He does not want these matters discussed in the House. But the hon. member must know that if the committee were given the discretion to consider whatever questions they saw fit, every single one of these things could be discussed by the committee and the House; so that when he advocates a wide open door it simply means the institution of a political campaign in connection with the administration of the railways. The hon. member for Marquette said he did not believe that all these things should be inquired into but that we should inquire into questions of policy. Did he move any amendment? He made no suggestion, so that his position is simply this, that we should throw the door wide open, carry all our political quarrels into the committee on railways, and simply debauch the administration of the railways of this country. I know of no rock which is more likely to wreck the ship of government control in connection with our railways than permitting the House of Commons to get its hand on the adjustment of these various matters. The effect of such a policy would be to destroy the authority of the management and of the officers of the roads. They might make a decision in some matter and the party concerned would simply say:
"Your decision is not final; I 10 p.m. have another court of appeal.
I can go to my representative and he will bring the matter before the Railway Committee of the House." Now, Mr. Speaker, we are at a crisis in connection with the administration of our-railways, and this House must determine once and for all whether or not it is going to tolerate any committee that will inquire into private differences and private arrangements, and all these minor transactions in the operation and management of the railways. I believe that the constitution of the railway employees now is such that, while the management might possibly not object to interference of this kind, the men themselves would undoubtedly oppose it very strenuously, because, having got any

matter in contention adjusted with the management of the railways, they would not want this or any other government to intervene. Nothing fairer can be suggested to the House than the resolution of the Prime Minister that this matter should go to a committee for consideration as to what the extent of inquiry shall be, and the House could then either adopt or reject the report of that committee and perhaps establish a final policy for all time.


Mr. F. L. DAVIS (Neepawa) :: To
paraphrase the language of a British statesman of about a century ago, we are to-day like fishermen sitting on an empty chest by a bottomless pool of deficiencies seeking for a method of management. Our trouble to-day is that we have endeavoured to engraft upon the methods and practices of responsible government the advantages of corporate management, and the fact that the Government has had to bring down this request for a committee is evidence that that graft has not been a successful one. And now we are asked to examine it and decide what is to be done in the matter. As I have sat listening to the debate to-day, I have been trying to imagine this concern as a body of shareholders considering the report of their directors upon a deficit in the operations of the company. Now, why have we not been able to examine the situation just as such directors would? The reason is quite plain. Here we are playing a bigger game than that played by the directors of any company; we are playing a different game. These deficits on shipping and railways are after all but one-sixth of the whole field of management that comes under our control. Consequently, every question which may come up in relation to this subject, if it can throw discredit upon the government of the day, is a matter of public importance to the Opposition. Not only is that true of the existing House, but it would be well for us to keep in mind that some day there will come a change in the government of the country and then what is now set up as precedent may continue to operate to the grave disadvantage of the country in general and of this enterprise in particular. In examining the resolution of the Prime Minister, it seems to me that, were it not for the many speeches that have been made as limiting the sense and scope of the inquiry, the wording of the first sentence would carry us far on the road towards what the amendment asks for:
(1) What information as to operation of Canadian National Railways and Shipping as conducted by the Board of Directors and Management should, in the public interest, be brought down in Parliament on Question, Motion for Production of Papers, or otherwise.
Now, two or more years ago when we considered this matter the case was hypothetical. We had not then the reports of the company for examination; we had not the record of government ownership. Today we have that record, and in my opinion the country will absolve us from any charge of party politics and will say that we have been wise if, in view of deficits amounting to more than $120,000,000 in two years, we turn the whole management upside down, shake it apart and see what has happened. I cannot see that it is wise to approach this question in any other way, and taken in its widest sense and devoid of the interpretations that have been put upon it by Government speakers, that is what that first sentence means. How can you judge of the conduct of the Board unless you go into all matters with which they have had to do?
Now there are one or two things that cause grave discredit to the Government, or at any rate to the management of the railways, at the present time. A gentleman at one time sat in this House whom the Prime Minister of that day read out of the party who to-day is a purchasing agent for the national railways in the city of Chicago. If such things can happen it points directly to some political connection between the management of the railways and the party of which he was a member. In consequence I take it that we have to go the whole road in connection with this examination; and if it were not, as I say again, for the speeches which have been made in limitation of this interpretation I would take that first sentence to mean that very thing. Again, as was pointed out, I think, by the Minister of Justice, in the fourth clause of the resolution there are words going to the same extent:

and for such other purposes as the committee deem in the public interest there be referred to said committee the Annual Report of the Board of Directors and that the said committee have power to examine witnesses-
And so forth. But with the interpretations which have been put upon the report, and no answer having been made to the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) who spoke a moment or two ago asking for instances of what should be exempted from examination by this committee, I am inclined to believe that the Government do mean something by their

language other than what I would take the broad meaning of the resolution to be. Now, finally, I would say this with regard to the matter. It could all be fixed with the addition of perhaps a dozen words if the resolution read:
That a Select Standing Committee on National Railways and Shipping be appointed for the present session and be instructed to enquire into all matters relating to Government Shipping and Railways, and to report upon the following questions-
And so forth. Then I would be entirely content with the reference. We are playing a bigger game here-and the country realizes the fact-than merely managing a railway; we are managing a country, and the expenditures for this railway system represent only a sixth part of this year's estimates of expenditures. That being the case we cannot examine the situation apart from the political position, and the result is that we have apparent limitations put upon the meaning of this reference. Now, if the matter could be read in the light that I have suggested, I would support the resolution. But just as I stand at present I shall have to vote for the amendment, although I shall never consider it as a precedent for the House going, every year and on every possible occasion, into the management of these railways. But with the experience that we have had I think we must now investigate the management in order to satisfy the country. Should the Government accept the interpretation of their resolution which I have suggested I would be pleased indeed to vote for their commitment and a confining of the investigation to those purposes which, in the long run, must be the purposes sought by the House.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Having sat through most of the afternoon and evening listening, as intently as I might, to the remarks that have,been made on the resolution and amendment before the House, I have been forced to the conclusion that many of the hon. members who have spoken, and have taken the position that they have with regard to each proposition, were either not in the House when the Prime Minister made his statement in relation to the scope of the inquiry he suggested the committee should have, or else they have not read the amendment proposed by the leader of the Opposition. In addition to the four clauses specifically set out in the motion, the Prime Minister stated that he was willing to accept an amendment that would provide that the commit-

tee might inquire into what was the best system of management for the Canadian National railways-into the whole question of the general policy of the Government in relation to the management and operation of these railways. The Prime Minister stated definitely that if the resolution did not now provide that, he was willing to accept an amendment that would make it just that wide-that is that a committee of the House-let me repeat it- might inquire into the whole question of policy in relation to the management and operation of the Canadian National railways. The amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition sets out, not that the policy shall be inquired into, not that we shall determine whether we have decided on the correct management of the Canadian National railways, but that every detail of the management of the Canadian National railways must be investigated by this committee.


William Stevens Fielding: No, that is not the
amendment.


George Brecken Nicholson: Very well, I will
read the amendment, and I will accept correction if I am wrong in my interpretation. It says that such committee shall make inquiry into all matters in connection with, the operation of the Canadian National Railways. What does "all matters" mean, if not all details? What is there excluded when you inquire into all matters in regard to operation?


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will permit me, he stated a moment ago that the amendment required the committee to go into all the details of the operation of the railways. That is not in the amendment. We have the power to go into all the details of the returns of every department of the Government but we do not do it; but if any proposal were made that the power of Parliament to do that should be restricted we would oppose it. My hon. friend used the expression-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must remind the hon. gentleman that he has not the floor and presumably the only reason for his rising was to submit a question.


William Stevens Fielding: Only with the consent of the hon. member for East Algoma, and I thought I had it.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am perfectly content.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not within the competence of the hon. gentleman for East

Algoma to give consent nor is the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's in order in making an argument.


William Stevens Fielding: I rose to explain the point of difference between the hon. gentleman's interpretation of the amendment and my own, but I am content.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am sorry to be
forced to disagree with my hon. friend, but if the amendment means anything it means that the committee would be appointed for the purpose I have indicated. If the committee does not carry out the purpose for which it is appointed then we had better not appoint a committee at all. The terms of the amendment are that the committee is to be appointed to inquire into all matters in connection with the operation of the Canadian National railways. -Now, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) spoke in relation to this matter, and in the first part of his speech he laid down a perfectly sound policy. I would ask that hon. gentleman particularly to pay attention to what I say for I think we are very largely in agreement. He laid down the perfectly sound policy that if we are ever going to have successful management of government-owned railways we must keep them clear of political influence; if we are ever going to be able to go out and get the right class of men to manage and operate these railways we have to place that confidence in them that will enable them to feel that we are going to let them do their work just as if they were employed by a private corporation. These were not his words, but I think he will agree that I have given a fair interpretation of what he said. Now he immediately turned round and followed that up by saying that while you cannot expect to bring these men into a situation that would make it possible for their acts as operating officers to be the subject of debate across the floor of this House, nevertheless, we should appoint a committee of Parliament who will have power to inquire into every matter in connection with the details of the operation of the Canadian National railways. Again, I think that is a fair statement of the position taken by the hon. gentleman. Now that is where the fundamental difference occurs between the proposals of the Prime Minister, and the proposals set forth by the leader of the Opposition. The first clause provides, that a committee shall be appointed to inquire into how far it is wise for Parliament to go in delving
into the details of operation of the Canadian National railways. That is what it means, to determine how far it is wise for us to go if we are to have successful management of our railways. The second clause is to ascertain by what method this information shall be given to the House and to the public. The third is to determine what system of auditing shall be adopted. The fourth, the broad clause, provides for referring the annual report of the board of directors to the committee, that they may inquire into it. And, finally, the Prime Minister says: If this is not sufficiently wide, we are ready to accept an amendment that will make it possible for the committee to inquire into what _ lines of policy may be followed in developing a better system for the management of the Canadian National railways.
I should like to submit one or two questions in relation to inquiring into the details of operation, because I submit that right there is the rock on which Government ownership is going to wreck itself, if it wrecks itself at all. We must either have management of the Government-owned railways independent of politics of we can.-not operate such railways successfully. If you open the door, as being suggested, to inquire into every detail of operation of these railways, how are you going to keep that operation free from politics?
When this committee meets and starts to inquire into this question in detail, and some point arises such as has been referred to in this and in previous debates-as to why one station has one agent and another two agents; as to why a section foreman was dismissed on some part of the line; as to why there are two trains running where somebody thinks there should only be one; as to why ties were purchased from one man and rails from another, and so on-in connection with the operation of these lines all over the country, who are we going to ask for detailed information? I submit that the very first man the committee would appeal to would be the president of the Canadian National railways. He would be brought before that committee to answer these questions. But what information would he be able give to the committee? He would say at once, " I know nothing whatever about any of these matters, and I am not in a position to answer your questions. You will have to bring such and such an officer who is in charge of that particular work in the department." And before you get through with the investigation you will have the

whole operating staff herein Ottawa answering questions, and then the Parliamentary committee would not know anything more about the operation of the railways than they did before, simply because they are not competent to pass judgment on matters of operation. That is the situation. The whole discussion would seem to indicate that it is in the minds of some hon. members that some one individual somewhere can be brougnt here and by being asked a series of questions can give to the House all this detailed information. Does anyone suggest that the president of the Canadian National railways is in personal contact with all of the diverse activities in connection with operation? In the first place, the system is divided into two parts, the eastern and the western, each with its general manager. These are the next executive officers we would bring here. The eastern lines are divided into a certain number of grand divisions or districts, and those in turn are divided into sub-districts. All the general superintendents or assistant general managers of these divisions would be the next group of men we would bring here. It is needless to labour the point further. Anyone who has any appreciation of a business of that character will see at once that to embark on such an investigation would not only lead the committee and Parliament into a hopeless maze, but would create a situation that would make it impossible for the Canadian people to get men to undertake the management and operation of their railways.
We must all admit that we are faced with a difficult situation, and that it is not easy to determine just where we must begin and where we must end in connection with how far Parliament can go in respect to these matters. It may be that this committee can serve a useful purpose in so far as getting some light with regard to how much detailed information Parliament may secure and (how much it is unwise for it to expect to secure. But let we repeat, that if there is a man in this House who expects that Canada is going to develop a system of publicly-owned railways efficiently operated, and that the officers of such railways are going to be dragged before parliamentary committees to explain why they did this or that particular thing in connection with details of operation, you may make up your minds once for all that our Canadian National railways instead of becoming a success will eventually bankrupt the country. You can never operate under those conditions.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere, Mr. Vien) in speaking on this subject indicated what is in the minds at least of some hon. members in regard to all these questions of detail when he said that there were 208 -I think that was the number; perhaps it was 228-conductors on a certain section of the Canadian National railways and they were going out on their trains in a state of intoxication, that they were stealing the public money, either not collecting it or putting it in their pockets, and so on, and the desire of the hon. member and of others who are supporting the position he takes was that the names of those conductors should be brought before the House of Commons for debate in order that we might dismiss them if found delinquent. Well, if that is the function of Parliament in connection with the operation of the Canadian National railways, the best thing we can do is to dismiss the officers whom we now have endeavouring to operate these railways. How long does any hon. member expect you would keep a self-respecting superintendent or general superintendent if the House of Commons is going to bring his employees before it and determine whether he is maintaining proper discipline or not? And yet that is what is stated on the floor of this House that we should have an investigating committee for, in order that information of that character should be secured and we should dismiss employees.'


Mr. BUTTS:: Turn out the bosses.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma) :: The question was asked, what is there in connection with the operation of the Canadian National railways that in the public interest cannot or should not be given. The answer to-that can simply be summed up in this way. If there is going to be successful government ownership of railways there must be independent management. I am ' not for one moment saying that the present management is all that it should be. It may be wholly wrong. When the general : question of what has already taken place and the position we at present find ourselves in comes up for debate, I may take advantage of the opportunity and say something with regard to that.
The principle, nevertheless, is this: so long as this managing body is retained, and until Parliament determines that it no longer has our confidence, we cannot ask it to appear before a committee of the

House or before the House itself and answer questions with regard to details of operation and management. I am inclined to think, knowing, as I do, some of the junior officers of the Canadian National railways, that the very moment you asked them to do that they would hand in their resignation. The hon. member for Marquette, I am sure, would say they would not be self-respecting men, not men with the capacity to do the work we expect of them, if they took any other position.
Is this proposed committee to sit in camera, as has been suggested? Has the House of Commons authority to appoint a committee to go off into some room, lock the doors, examine witnesses and obtain a lot of information and then determine what part of it shall be furnished to the House? Every single item of evidence taken by any such committee is the property not of the committee itself but of the House of Commons. The whole report and the evidence upon which it is founded will be the subject of debate in the House; every particle of detailed information will be threshed out here. Officers will be attacked, as was suggested this afternoon, with regard to matters concerning which they cannot defend themselves, and attacked, too, by men who know nothing about the subjects with which they deal. There is only one way out of this difficulty; accept the proposal of the Prime Minister. If this resolution is not wide enough, make it sufficiently wide so that the committee may inquire into the whole question of the management of the Canadian National railways. The question whether or not we have a proper system of management is a proper one for a parliamentary committee to inquire into, and is a proper subject for this House to debate. There are genuine differences of opinion on the question whether we are employing the best system of management. Here is exactly the difference between the resolution proposed by the Prime Minister and the amendment of the leader of the Opposition: one involves the question of principles, the other a question of details. If we want to set the principles to one side and go into the details; if we want to inquire how many section-men are working at a certain point; how many telegraph operators there are at certain stations; how many ties were laid in certain mileages-if we want all these things, then let us vote for the amendment. But if we want to inquire into the principles underlying the whole question of the government ownership and operation of these railways, let us adopt the resolution proposed by the Prime Minister. Personally,
I have no difficulty whatever in making up my mind on this point. I have contended ever since I have been in the House -not as an arden advocate of public ownership of railways, but as one who has had some slight connection with the operation of railways-that you will never operate successfully a publicly-owned railway or any other kind of railway so long as it is subject to political interference and political influence. That is what is contemplated in the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the Opposition, and for that reason I will vote against it.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few remarks to make in support of the amendment of the leader of the Opposition purporting to enlarge the scope of the committee which is to inquire into matters affecting the operation of the Canadian National railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.
In my humble opinion there is only one point to consider, and it is this: who are the proprietors of the Canadian National railways and the Canadian merchant marine? Are the proprietors entitled to information with regard to the management of these Government enterprises? That is the only question to be decided, the only question before the House. The management of our railways issue a report showing a deficit of $70,000,000 this years-the deficit last year was $49,000,000-and ask for a vote of $165,000,000. Surely we have the right to inquire into the circumstances which are responsible for this condition. Surely the information should be laid before the House in order that we may be able to ascertain the cause of these large deficits and endeavour, to the best of our ability, to remove that cause.
Let me illustrate my thought. If the Canadian national railways or the Canadian merchant marine were a private corporation in which you, Mr. Speaker, were a shareholder, and if the management brought down a report showing a deficit of $70,000,000 for the operations of last year and asking for a fresh budget of $165,000,000, surely it would be your right to have all the details and all the information made available in order that they might be examined and considered. You would ask for instance, what the company were paying for locomotives and for various kinds of equipment; what amount was paid out by way of salaries to the different employees of the company; how many em-


Robert Hamilton Butts: Would my hon. friend
allow me to.ask him a question? What does my hon. friend estimate the cost of operation of a 10,000 ton ship per month?


Joseph Archambault: I have great
respect for my hon. friend who has just asked me a question, but not at all times. I am always delighted to answer any questions of his when he is serious, but I am sorry that he is not so to night. I have no desire to be discourteous, but I do not care to enter into a discussion with him at the present moment.


Robert Hamilton Butts: You do not know anything about it do you?


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I should like to interject a few imperfect remarks into this debate. When one speaks of railway matters in this country, one might as well make up his mind that he is speaking of the very life of Canada, for there is no use disguising the fact that the solvency of Canada is very gravely challenged to-day by the present railway situation. I would agree to a committee being appointed with full powers to look into the railway situation and get all the information, but I am not in favour of a committee that will only ask for information that it will not get. If that is to be the bright feature from which Canadian democracy is to draw solace, I am not in favour of a committee of that kind.
When the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) submitted his annual statement on March 17, I felt a little pity for him, because he had the inglorious task of disclosing to the House another deficit on the year's operations of $70,000,000. But is that $70,000,000 the actual deficit? It is because I want to make sure that I favour the appointment of a committee with full powers to inquire and ascertain just what the deficit is. If the minister were in the House to-night, I would challenge him, as I did at the second session of 1919, when this House was sitting in the Victoria Museum, to deny that the deficit, this year instead of being $70,000,000, is nearer

$132,000,000. What can a committee do that has no powers at all? Can it change the capital liabilities of the different lines? Can it change the fixed annual charges? Not at all. I would also like to see a committee appointed that would inquire into the management, I think that is absolutely necessary. After all, Mr. Speaker, I think the great fault in the National railway system is the centralization of the management in the city of Toronto. I grant you that Toronto is a beautiful city; but it is also a peculiar city. It is endowed with many gifts, I grant, but it has a fatal defect. It is an intellectual city, a cultured city, a hospitable city. In matters literary, and in matters military, Toronto can always be depended upon to use discernment, but in matters political the vision of Toronto has always been distorted. We have the proof of that in connection with railway matters. It has always been a failure, and always will be.
If we had a committee with full powers to inquire into railway matters, Mr. Speaker, it would find out that on the Intercolonial, for instance, we have absolutely no modern bookkeeping methods. The Intercolonial is divided into three divisions- from Montreal to Mont Joli, from Mont Joli to Moncton, and from Moncton to Sydney and Halifax. Last year the Intercolonial had a $5,000,000 deficit, but yet the division from Montreal to Mont Joli had a $2,000,000 surplus. This year the very same thing is repeated. There is almost a $2,000,000 surplus on the division from Montreal to Mont Joli.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is Bellechasse in that division?


Charles Alphonse Fournier: Yes, it is. Then I would point out that the superintendent of that division is handicapped in having always to await orders from Toronto. His name is Mr. E. L. Desjardins, and the general superintendent is Mr. J. E. Mora-zain. I can commend these men to the minister. They are the only two who are showing results on the Intercolonial Railway, and I think the minister would do well to get a few more French-Canadians of their calibre as railway men. All the train despatching orders for the division come from Toronto. From Chaudiere to my parish it is only 18 miles, and you cannot send a train out unless the locomotive hauls a certain amount of tonnage. Well, during the winter, when it is 10 or 15 below zero, a locomotive with a load of 60 cars

cannot clear the sidings, and to accommodate such trains it would be well to lengthen the sidings. It takes 8 hours to make that 18 mile run, with such tonnage, and time and a half to go to the end of the run. If this matter were inquired into I am sure that it would result in a great deal of money being saved in demurrage. I do not wish to criticize the increase in rates that has been granted by the Railway Commission, except to say that they did not use discretion in granting increases on commodities that could not stand the increase, such as brick and lumber. These increased rates have paralized the building industry. That is another matter that the committee might well look into.
The people of this country are called upon to pay an appalling amount to make good the losses on these railways, and they might as well open their eyes to the situation. Mr. Speaker, the burden imposed upon the public treasury by the mismanagement of the national railways cannot be characterized in fitting terms. War expenditures have accustomed the public to fabulous sums, but the figures in connection with the railway situation cannot be mitigated by familiarity with reckless expenditure. The deficit in 1919 totalled some $48,000,000; this year it is stated to be $70,000,000, but I contend that it is nearer $133,000,000. The people, I say, might just as well realize that this great system of railways is nothing but an old cripple which they have taken on their backs. Last year when the Minister of Railways submitted his statement he had not very much encouragement to'offer the House and the country, but he did promise that proper steps would be taken to apply business methods. Now, the Minister of Railways is a politician, and as such he stated that the only way to overcome deficits in connection with our railways was to increase the revenues, and the only way to increase the revenue is by increasing the rates. The deficit on the national railways does not fall on private shareholders but on the Canadian people, who have to meet it in taxation whether in the form of customs duties, income tax or taxes levied on the profits of business, and a deficit on the railways made up in this indirect way, which has to take the place of inadequate transportation rates, is unfair to the people.
The minister said last year that the management of the railways had urged the adoption of business methods and an advance in rates, but speaking for the Government, he got rid of this dilemma by

passing it on to Parliament and to the people. The rates were increased during the last year, however; but after all, notwithstanding these increased rates, the increased rates produced 19 per cent more revenue and advanced wages absorbed 16 per cent. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite, when they talk about the railways, to say that we on this side are at fault because we have over-built; but I return the compliment and say that if we have over-built they have over-bought. Now, in view of the fact that the minister is not disposed to give us the information we want, we are obliged to take our own figures. I remember that in the Grand Trunk debate I submitted a detailed statement of operations and I challenged the Minister of Railways and the then Minister of the Interior, now Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) to refute them, but the right hon. gentleman declined to take the challenge up. I am sorry he is not in the House, but I shall have an opportunity at some time to repeat my challenge. Mr. Speaker, no one will buy these 11 p.m. railways, and the only thing we can do in the circumstances is to appoint a committee, secure all the information we can, and make the best of a bad job. I wrote a letter to Mr. Hanna asking that the Ocean Limited be allowed to make a regular stop, as it had always done in the past, at St. Charles de Belle-chasse. Any one who knows anything about the railways in the province of Quebec knows that this is an important station, also an initial station, but the Ocean Limited, instead of stopping at this station, simply slows down. I kept a record, covering a period of six months, of people who wanted to take the train to Montreal, but they had to take the Canadian Pacific railway from Quebec and then proceed; and although I did not give Mr. Hanna the figures, I may say that in six months the Canadian National Railways lost in this way the sum of $8,000. I told Mr. Hanna that I was prepared to do all I could to make the Canadian National Railways a success but he paid no heed to me. All these things could be inquired into if we had a proper committee.
It would be interesting to go into the question as to why the Canadian Northern people, when they handed their railway over to the Government, were allowed to keep strips of land along their line for which the Canadian National Railways today are held up; and it would also be interesting to know who disorganized the 114
Transcontinental. If the Transcontinental had been operated for the purpose for which it was built it would have been a great success. From the West to St. John it would have meant a shorter route by 440 miles. But instead seventy per cent of the production of western grain is taken to New York. I asked the Minister of Railways this afternoon who had lifted the rails of the Transcontinental and where they had gone to; and there are other things of great interest which would be brought out before a committee. I will not go further into these matters to-night. I shall have an opportunity to explain these and other things later on when the Estimates of the Minister of Railways are under consideration; but when I make this statement about the rails being lifted on the Transcontinental I make it on my own responsibility as a member of Parliament, and when the member for Bellechasse makes a statement he is prepared to substantiate it. The management of these railways has disorganized everything. This board disorganized the shops at Riviere du Loup by taking about 114 men from their homes there and planting them at the St. Malo shop, Quebec. Is that what my hon. friends opposite regard as a constructive measure? It is to inquire into matters of this kind that we want a committee. If the Government is not ashamed of the way in which these railways are being managed let us have a thorough investigation. Let us get at the facts and I am pre-' pared to do my share in futhering the necessary investigation.


Michael Clark: I am extremely reluctant to keep the House, for even a minute or two, from a division so late upon a Friday night. I do not know that I should have intervened at all, because my position was stated perfectly from my point of view by my hon. friend from Marquette. If it had not been that my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) who represents the George Etienne Cartier division of Montreal made what I conceive to be a somewhat unjust attack upon my hon. friend near me. He charged him in so many words with having offered no constructive suggestions in regard to railroads in this country. Well I am not altogether sure that I agree with the constructive suggestions that my hon. friend from Marquette has made in their entirety as to their usefulness with regard to the railroad situation, but I had observed his doings carefully enough to notice that he



had at many joints in this country advocated a re-valuation of the railways for specific purposes. He did that in the city of my hon. friend from the division of George Etienne Cartier. In the same city he advocated a wise and well directed policy of immigration as a policy which might help the railroads of this country out of their difficulties. I mention these things to bring to my hon. friend's information up to date, and to repel his charge that my hon. friend from Marquette has not made constructive suggestions.
Sir, the course of the debates on railroad matters within the last two weeks ha3 been a little peculiar* and has debarred us from discussing the railroad question at large or I might have extended the constructive suggestions of my hon. friend considerably at the present moment. I will not do so however, because I have regard to the ruling which you, Sir, gave out at the beginning of this debate this afternoon, that the platform upon which we could speak to-day was a very narrow one. I am quite sure that with different occupants of the Chair this debate has gone far beyond the limits which you yourself, Sir, had in your mind at the moment, and I desire at this hour of the night to keep strictly to the question which is before the House. Now that question, like all new questions of this magnitude, presents a very great national difficulty, and I want to reiterate a statement which I have given expression to myself, and to emphasize it as it was expressed today by my hon. friend from Marquette-. a sentiment to the effect that our railroad difficulties are far too great for us to approach them except in the spirit of helpfulness and co-operation with a view to getting the nation through them.
The question before us to-day, in the form of the two motions upon which we shall presently decide by a vote, is a very difficult question. There are two considerations that are in the minds of all of us who are thinking earnestly upon the subject, and I think that is the case with every hon. gentleman in this House. We must have regard in the first place to the necessity of the management and directors of the National roads having that freedom and secrecy from day to day-and I emphasize the phrase "from day to day"- which are in the possession of the management and directors of all business corporations. Now, if the House was, as was proposed two weeks ago, to seek for itself, as a House of Commons, to exercise the power of so overlooking the management

and the directors of the National roads from day to day that they could pursue the ordinary course in regard to a Government department, then I am advised that the biggest railroad men on this continent would not take the job, because they would consider that they were foredoomed to failure owing to their operations being hampered and restricted in that way. For what would happen? I assume that even on occasion we should have some question directed to the Government on the Orders of the Day. They would either have to have that information, or they would immediately have to trouble the management about it when perhaps they were engaged in some other very important business. We should have questions put upon the Order Paper from day to day, we should have all the devices known to members of parliament, which would lead to the railroads being made a political football-all the devices usually used by members of parliament, I fear too often with a view to party or personal advantage rather than to the success of this great business enterprise which is being handled in a new way by this young country and is, I want to repeat, presenting us with problems of the very greatest difficulty.
On the other hand, there must be present to the minds of all of us another necessity which, to my mind, is equally urgent, and that is the necessity of Parliament and the people-who are the shareholders of these roads-being possessed of the means of exercising a vigilant oversight over the handling of their property. If they have not the means of that oversight, Mr. Speaker, it is clear even to a tyro in matters of business, that slackness in the management will inevitably creep in, that business evils will creep in, and-as some have anticipated-our deficiencies, our deficits, will rise instead of falling as the days go by. Well now, the Government have thought it wise to make an attempt along that line by proposing in the first place, that we should relieve ourselves of the difficulties to which I first alluded by appointing a committee of this House to make inquiries under certain very definite restrictions.
May I say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot see what would be the use of that committee at all operating under those restrictions. It is proposed to confine the work of this committee to making up their minds what information, if any, should be given to the House of Commons, and the methods by which that information should be com-

municated. Well, I am bound to say that if that be all the committee is to do, that is something which the House of Commons surely has the power to decide for itself here and now. And, holding that view, I shall vote for the amendment.
I asked my right hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), when he was speaking, how a committee could possibly decide on what information ought to be communicated to the House if the committee itself knew nothing about the information at all or was to be restricted in the information which it did have. If the committee is to be restricted in respect to the information which it possesses, it would baffle the human intelligence of this committee to form a sensible opinion on what information should be given to this House. The committee would meet in ignorance, it would deliberate in ignorance, and it would decide in ignorance if it were restricted in the way in which this motion proposes. So that I repeat I cannot see what the use of a committee working under these restrictions would be at all. On the other hand, if they choose, as doubtless; the Government will, a committee of men of parliamentary experience-most of our committees do have hon. gentlemen of considerable parliamentary experience chosen by preference-and, in addition hon. members who have devoted their attention largely to railroad matters, then I am with the demand that they should have the power to get what information seems to them wise as a parliamentary committee.
I would only add, in conclusion, that I should think they would exercise those powers with discretion. I understood my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) to say in his remarks to the House to-day that we should rely on the discretion of such a parliamentary committee conducting its inquiries with a view to the two necessities which they would have peculiarly placed upon them-the necessity, on the one hand, of not unduly hampering the management and directors of the road; and, on the other hand, the necessity of bringing to Parliament at least sufficient information to enable it to exercise a vigilant oversight of those who are managing this great national property.


Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Clark), it is my purpose to be very brief at this stage of the debate. I find myself in sympathy with the resolution before the House, but before recording my vote I should like to
114|
ask my right hon friend, the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), two questions, which he will have an opportunity to answer when closing the debate. In the first place, I would call to his attention the fact that when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) was presenting his report to this House he referred specifically to the high wages paid the railway employees as being one cause of the large deficits. I should like to ask my right hon. friend if I am right in assuming that the wage earners of the railroad will be given an opportunity to present their side of that question before this proposed committee? The second question I would ask my right hon. friend is this: Will the gentlemen who recently came from Winnipeg to present their case before the Board of Railway Commissioners relative to railway rates be given an opportunity to re-state their case before this committee?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member I would like also to make a few remarks anent the amendment itself. The fixing of wages or of rates could not, no matter whether the amendment or the motion passed, come within the jurisdiction of the committee. The first matter is necessarily in charge of the Canadian National Railway Company on the one side and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the other; and the control of rates is delegated by statute specifically to the Railway Commission. But the men employed on the road could personally or through their organizations give evidence before the committee as to anything that the committee is deputed to ascertain, and among the things deputed to it the question of the form of the annual report and what it should disclose would be something upon which they could be called and could give evidence, as well as on any other subject within the purview of the committee. I do want to say a word too, as to the peculiar position this House would be in if it accepted this amendment. I do not know that I can make it any clearer than it was, to me at least, stated in the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for King's, N.S. (Sir Robert Borden). It will be recalled that in previous debates-and I do not wish to refer to them again in extenso-it was very generally conceded, and particularly by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), in language that to my judgment was precisely right, that unquestionably there is information as to operation in respect to which the management must

have the same secrecy and control as the management of any other system, and which information, as expressed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), will not be subject to disclosure in Parliament while the operation is going on. For example, supposing we should have to disclose in Parliament the shipments made by a certain firm of their particular line of goods, manufactured perhaps in Chicago or at some other point served by our roads, will any hon. member for a moment suggest that this House would be justified in publishing that information? But it is a matter of operation and is within the meaning of this amendment. And so with other matters. I am told that if the management were to make known the differentials as to the rates given, it would make operation impossible, that is, they would not get the business and the loss would be disastrous to the system. I can pass from one thing to another, and in each instance 1 can assure the House that if the information is disclosed it will add millions of dollars to the deficit. There is no question ' in the world about it. I do not need to argue it with the hon. member for Marquette, who has himself stated in language that he would be expected to use as the manager himself of a large business concern. Now, we will suppose this amendment passes. Then where are we landed as respects this very information that the hon. member says cannot be disclosed without disaster? What is the duty of this committee, if it is appointed, what is it entrusted to do, yea, deputed to do by this Parliament? Is it deputed to bring in a recommendation as to anything? Has it any definite purpose? None whatever; it is not asked to do anything; it is not asked to help us in any respect whatever. It is simply asked to inquire into-what? Info all matters that in any way relate to the railways owned and controlled by the Government. It was suggested by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that the committee would not take the position of permitting anything and everything to be inquired into. But suppose some member got up in that committee and said: I want to know these things that the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) says should not be known; that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's says it could not be conceived that any committee would disclose. Suppose that member of the committee said: I want to call a witness to find that out-who could rise in 
the committee and say, "no"? This House told the committee to get the information.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my right hon. friend a question to elucidate the matter? Would it not be entirely proper for the committee to exercise its discretion in the matter?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: No, decidedly it would not. Hon. members say "hear, hear," but they know it would not. It is in the motion; that is why the motion is worded as it is-worded to say that the committee may ascertain anything that the committee deems it necessary to inquire into. If this amendment passes the committee is deputed to inquire into everything connected with the road, and no chairman of that committee and no member of it would be doing his duty who would get up and say that the committee had any right to prevent the disclosure of anything whatever relating to that railway. How would he have the right? Upon what would he base his right? Would he say: I know better; I know that will do harm? Oh, the reply would be, Parliament has told us to inquire into everything; that is what we are here for. Parliament has not given us any discretion; it has told us to go so far as we deem necessary. Parliament does not tell the committee to go as far as it may deem necessary for certain purposes. No purpose is set out in this amendment. The committee are to be sent out into the wilderness and told that they have power-indeed it is their duty to go into anything that anybody wants to go into-and hon. members boast that that is the power which is given to the committee. And once any information under such a reference gets before that committee it is before this House; it is in the press the same day. Everything may be done that hon. members have said must not be done if we are to have any regard at all for efficient management and for the success of the system.
Now, I do not think the hon. member for Marquette understood-there is a habit in this House of sprniging these things suddenly-he did not understand that that was the effect of the amendment. But that is the effect, and that is precisely why the amendment was worded as it is. The only thing that approached an argument in this matter-I do not want to use the language discourteously-or that appealed to me as being most within the region of relevancy was something urged by the member for Sunbury and Queen's.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the hon. gentleman try to- get that right, now? It is Shelburne and Queen's.


Arthur Meighen: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I shall be glad to give it the right designation. There will be a member for Sunbury very soon, but he will be on this side of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member is
not going to give him a chance.


Arthur Meighen: There will be no mistaking him.


William Stevens Fielding: When he comes.


Arthur Meighen: And he will come. My hon. friend's contention was with regard to pensions. The committee, he said, was given carte blanche to make any recommendations to the House that it thought best with regard to pensions and civil reestablishment. That is true, and if the same course could safely have been pursued here it would have been done. But the reason why it could not safely have been pursued here is just the reason which was urged in such strong terms by the hon. member for Marquette; as regards pensions, those reasons would not apply at all. It is because there was the necessity for protecting the management in the running of their concern that restraint was necessary here where no restraint was necessary in respect to pensions. There was nothing that could not be disclosed with respect to pensions at any time without hurting anybody, and that is just the difference.
Now, let me repeat: if we adopt a resolution establishing a committee which shall have power to inquire into all matters relating to the railways owned and controlled by the Government, that makes it a committee so to do, and in order to get information on any subject all a member of the committee has to do is assert in the committee that the subject into which he wishes to inquire relates to the railways owned and controlled by the Government, and he has no right to be stopped. Does the hon. member say that in the Pensions committee, which had a similar deputed power, any one could have prevented an inquiry into any matter relating to pensions? Certainly no one had the power to do so, and the chairman of the committee would have been derelict in his duty if he had prevented any such inquiry. It is the same here.


Mr. TRAHAN:: Will the right hon.
gentleman permit me a question?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Arthur Trahan: Does he think that when a committee has the right to exercise a certain power, it is obliged to exercise it?


Arthur Meighen: Why, no, it is not
obliged to do it; for that matter, the committee does not need to meet. No one is going to exercise physical force to make them do it. But what I say is that if any member of the committee wished to go into any matter, the chairman of the committee, under the authority given in the amendment, has no right whatever to resist it.


Mr. STEVENS:: Would the right hon. gentleman permit me a question before he leaves that point? A few moments ago an hon. member brought to the attention of the House a question regarding the closing of a small station in the province of Quebec, a question which he wanted to argue before the committee. Could that be done under the terms of the amendment? He declared that that was exactly what they wanted to do.


Arthur Meighen: There would be nothing in the world to prevent its being discussed and information brought out concerning it, so long as it related to the road.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If the committee gave its consent.


Arthur Meighen: Under the amendment the committee has no discretion.


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend permit me a question? If the Committee on Public Accounts should endeavour to get information respecting the private and confidential business transactions which a merchant carries on with a customer, what would happen? The committee have the power to go into that, but they will not do it; neither would the committee in this case be unreasonable.


Arthur Meighen: It does not matter how private and confidential it is; if it affects the public business and a member of the committee takes an aff davit that it does, the Committee on Public Accounts does not prevent him from going into it.


William Stevens Fielding: They have the right to refuse, and would always do it.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all, if the public interest was affected. I never knew it to be refused, and I sat on the Public Accounts Committee for many years. It

is for Parliament to say what shall be within the discretion of the committee. If there is no need for restraint, there will be none; if there is need for restraint, it is for Parliament to say so when it constitutes the committee.


Michael Clark: May I ask my right hon. friend if the committee under the Government's resolution would have the right to seek any information at all about the management of the road?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. I am glad the hon. member rose, because I know that he too is under a misconception. The hon. member at the close of his speech indicated that there was some restraint put on the committee in the reaching for evidence to enable it to come to the conclusions that are therein set out. Under the main motion the committee is under no restraint at all; it can inquire into anything it thinks necessary to inquire into that will assist it in arriving at conclusions on the subjects that are set before it.


Michael Clark: If the committee is to have the power to seek information, why restrict it?


Arthur Meighen: The committee has definite objects; it has the discretion to say whether any inquiry is necessary to enable it to reach the objects set out. That discretion is given it by resolution. But in this amendment no objects whatever are set out; the committee is simply given the duty of inquiring into anything at all that relates to the railways.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If the committee sees fit.


Arthur Meighen: The amendment does not say that; it provides that anything relating to the railways may be gone into. If there were any object set out and it was provided that the committee could decide whether or not it was necessary to go into anything in order to reach that object, that would be all right. But no purposes are set out here; it is merely a blind resolution. It turns the committee out in the dark, and all the committee has to do is to hunt around and see if it cannot find something for no purpose which the committee knows anything about. That is put forward in order to get in this House some votes that will, if possible, vote down the Government's motion.
My contention is that the Government has submitted this motion in good faith

for definite, concrete purposes and has made it as wide as there was any possibility of making it, if any regard is to be had for the wisdom of leaving the management some opportunity to make the road a success. If no regard is to be had for that, as hon. gentlemen immediately opposite argue, then certainly there would be no need for any restraint; but if regard is to be had for that, then we have made the very least possible restraint that you can make. I have submitted this, I know, not with any hope that I will change the vote of any hon. member who has declared himself; I could not expect that; but I lay it before the House in the hope that I will change their minds or, at least, give them some grounds for reflection whether they are on solid ground or not, and certainly with the hope that I will convince them that the Government has nothing in the world to conceal for its own purposes; that it has submitted this in the utmost good faith as the furthest step that can be taken, and the best designed to get real-and useful results for the country.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to this debate will be a brief one, and I will endeavour to confine myself strictly to the point at issue. In the latter regard I know that I will have your cordial good wishes.
Adverting to what was said by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in the last of his many admirable speeches, may 1 point out to him, with all respect, that as regards the fears Which he has expressed of what would happen if we had what is called parliamentary control, or House of Commons control, of the railway systems of this country, his argument proceeded upon the basis that such a thing apparently had never existed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) enlarged upon that and pictured, for the purpose of creating bogeys to frighten his friends angularly opposite, some terrible things that might ensue. For over fifty years we had parliamentary and House of Commons management of the Intercolonial, and none of the things which were pictured here this evening and this afternoon has ever happened.


Arthur Meighen: All of them happened.


Charles Murphy: There was no interference with people; there was no disclosure of information that militated against the Intercolonial. Matters were carried out in a regular and businesslike way through the responsible department. The head of that department made his statement to l'arlia-

ment, came before Parliament and was interrogated in the usual way regarding the details of his administration of the department and of the railroad committed to his care, so that we are not at all without precedent in connection with that phase of the matter.


Michael Clark: May I ask my hon. friend if the business results have been satisfactory?


Charles Murphy: The business results that were obtained were eminently more satisfactory than those that have been obtained since this House abdicated its functions and appointed this irresponsible board. The Prime Minister would have been more effective in the argument that he addressed, particularly to his friends angularly opposite, although towards the conclusion of it he gave up hope of affecting their votes-


Arthur Meighen: I did not start in time.


Charles Murphy: -if he had spoken before the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), because that right hon. member's argument destroyed, in advance, the effect of the argument of the Prime Minister. My right hon. friend has just interjected that he did not start in time. His remark reminds me of an Irishman who came running into a railway station just as the train was moving out and who made a similar remark. His friend said: "You did not run fast enough." The Irishman replied: "I ran fast enough, but I did not start soon enough." This was the case with my right hon. friend in attempting to affect the votes of his friends angularly opposite.


John Dowsley Reid: It was a Scotchman who said that.


Charles Murphy: If the Government
really desired, through a series of questions to be submitted to a committee to give effect to what is in the mind of the Canadian people at the present time in regard to the railway situation, these are the questions that ought to be submitted to their proposed committee:
(1)	What is the total amount of the present railway deficit?
(2)	What are the causes that produced that deficit?
(3)	What remedy should be applied to prevent a recurrence of railway deficits?
Then, if the Government further desired to go about the matter in a thorougly practical way, they would invest the committee with the powers prescribed in the
amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition. But the Government has done nothing of the kind. Instead of submitting practical questions of that kind to be determined by this committee, the Government proposes to submit a set of questions that will entail prolonged discusssion, endless hair-splitting, and, in the end, no practical results. One has only to read the questions to see that standing out in all its nakedness before him. Let me read them:
(1)	What information as to operation of Canadian National Railways and Shipping as conducted by the Board of Directors and Management should, in the public interest, be brought down in Parliament on Question, Motion for Production of Papers, or otherwise.
(2)	When, by that method, and under what conditions, if any, should such information be given, regard being had for the necessity of securing to Parliament and the public all facts requisite for the determination of policy (including finance), and to the Board of Directors the best possible conditions for efficiency of management.
(3)	What system of auditing should be adopted, and what extent of detail should be given in the Annual Report.
(4)	Whether and for what purposes the said committee should be continued, and that for the above purposes and for such other purposes as the committee deem in the public interest there be referred to said committee the Annual Report of the Board of Directors and that the said committee have power to examine witnesses under oath, to send for papers, persons, and records, and to report from time to time.
That is not the kind of information that the Canadian people are looking for at the present time and expect this Parliament to obtain. The people expect, yea, the people demand the fullest possible information on the railway situation. On that score, there is complete agreement between those who advocate public ownership and those who advocate private ownership and operation of railways. In support of that, let me read a few extracts from a couple of editorials published immediately after the preceding debate in this House upon this subject. On March 24, last, the Toronto Globe said:
In his speech on the condition of the Government railways Dr. Reid made an appeal for advice as to how the situation could be improved. Obviously the House could not respond to the appeal unless it were put in possession of the facts, and from this point of view there was force in Mr. King's amendment asserting the right of Parliament to full information as to the working of the railways. The taxpayers, who will have to make good a deficit of nearly $70,000,000 this year, have also a right to be informed. The objection that information of this kind might give an unfair advantage to the Canadian Pacific railway, a formidable rival of the Government railways, has not a great

deal of weight. The success of the C.P.K. has much more solid foundation than the obtaining of an occasional glimpse into the business of its rivals. Nor is it fair to assume tha/t the amendment moved by the Opposition was actuated by hostility to Government ownership. Public ownership must be accompanied by publicity and responsibility.
i
Further in the same article the Globe says:
What the House and the country require is not fragmentary information as to details, hut a clear understanding of the working of the system, its weaknesses and their causes, with a view to finding a remedy i-f possible. This is not to be found either in the annual statements of the Minister of Railways or in any accounts or other information submitted to Parliament. Government ownership on so vast a scale is a new departure, and new means of communicating information must be devised.
Still later the same editorial goes on:
The general principle that the House should control the expenditure of public money applies as much to railways as to any other branch of the public business. Public ownership does not mean, or should not mean, the denial of one of the first principles of responsible government.
And again:
The vastness of the system and the huge expenditures it involves are reasons, not for less, but for more information.
Then on the same date the Montreal Gazette, an exponent of the principle of private ownership and operation of railways had this to say in an editorial:
Perhaps as good an illustration as can be found to prove that the National railway has been taken out of politics is the proposed appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to bring it into, politics. The absurd pretence that the property of the people can be turned over to an irresponsible Board of Directors compelled the Prime Minister to take up a wrong attitude towards the amendment of Hon. Mr.' King on Tuesday evening. The constitutional principle which the leader of the Oppositon invited the House to approve is absolutely unassailable, that principle being "that it is the undoubted right of Parliament to demand and receive copies of all reports, accounts, correspondence and papers in relation to the management of every department of the public service, including the affairs of the Canadian National railways, whether operating directly under the control of a department or under corporate form."
The Government treated Hon. Mr. King's amendment as tantamount to a vote of want of confidence, and as a consequence it was rejected; yet the principle that the people who pay the taxes have a right to know how the proceeds of the taxes are applied survives.
The pretension that to submit the National railway management to the Inquisition of Parliament might lead to divulging of important business secrets to the Canadian Pacific Company is not to be taken seriously. We imagine the executive officers of the Canadian Pacific will not sit at the feet of the National Railway Board to learn wisdom. The point, however, is

this: who owns the National railways; out of whose pockets come the money to make up the operating and interest charges of that system? The people of Canada own the roads; they and they alone are the proprietors and if the management has been entrusted to half a dozen or more reputable gentlemen, does that deprive the owners of the right to demand an accounting? The truth is that the Government made a false step when it set up the pretence that the National railway was taken out of politics by intrusting its affairs to a government-appointed Board. The National railway has not been taken out of politics; it cannot be taken out of politics; and it should not be taken out of politics. As well contend that the Canadian Pacific Directorate, or that any other corporate institution should not be amenable to its shareholders. It is the last thing to be tolerated that a dozen gentlemen, however estimable, should be given a free hand to do as they will with the property of the people. The Government is accountable to Parliament for its administration of public affairs; why should that accountibility be removed from the men who manage' the largest and most important branch of the public service?
The editorial concludes with this statement:
The question is of supreme importance, and the sooner the Government drops the flimsy pretence that the responsibility for the management of the people's railways has been committed to an irresponsible directorate, and is therefore immune from criticism, the sooner will the country arrive at a solution of its most difficult and disturbing problem.
So that the position taken by the hon. leader of the Opposition, as expressed in the amendment that is now before the House, is endbrsed as I have said by those who advocate public ownership, as well as by those who advocate private ownership of these great public utilities.
Now, Sir, up to the time the right hon. gentleman the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) spoke this afternoon, the discussion had proceeded on the assumption that this Government committee which the Government proposes would investigate something, but the right hon. the member for King's made it quite plain that this committee would not investigate anything. In so doing he destroyed practically all the arguments that had been advanced in support of the Government's position up to that time, and he also took the force out of the argument which the leader of the Government addressed to the House just a few moments ago. What did the hon. member for King's say? In rather vigorous language he criticized the position taken by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in supporting the amendment, and in doing that he made the definite statement, a very proper statement, I submit, that the purpose of this proposed committee is not to conduct an investigation, but to

define a principle. That, Sir, I submit, is precisely the fact, but that, Sir, I again submit, is not what the people of this country expect of any such committee at this present time, and, Sir, in view of that fact, I commend not only the wisdom of my hon. friend from Marquette, and his friends who sit about him, in supporting this amendment, but the greater wisdom of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in embodying these sound principles in the resolution which he has placed in your hands.
Then the right hon. gentleman from King's said that after defining a principle, and he took good care not to say how many weeks or how many months it would take the committee to define this principle, the committee could come to this House and ask for powers to carry out this principle. Now may I inquire how long the Government intends that this farce should go on? How long is this performance to be kept up about defining a principle and then coming back to this House to find out how you are going to apply that principle, when, and to whom? If the Government are allowed a free hand in the matter, I venture the prophesy, that the leader of the Government will not be able to get away to the Imperial Conference in June next, because long after that time this House will be deliberating some feature of this principle which is to be defined by this committee. Now is it not apparent to everybody who has given a moment's thought to the subject that while the Canadian people are hungering for the facts about the railways, this proposed committee, limited to these four questions, will spend its time debating theories and in discussing academic issues? This committee will not only spend its time in doing that, but in bringing in interim reports to this House, and further time will be taken up in discussing these reports here and in issuing further instructions to this committee. Then in the end what will happen? My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) expressed grave regret this afternoon that somebody on this side of the House should have even mentioned the prospect of a majority and a minority report. Well, it is not so many years ago that my hon. friend and I served on the Soldiers Boots Committee of this House, and I recall with a good deal of pleasure that he was then very glad to join in a minority report when the majority in the committee undertook to stifle the facts and prevent them from
being known to the House. So majority and minority reports are not as strange to my hon. friend from North Oxford as he would lead the House to believe.
There will be time spent in doing all these things. Then a debate will take place in this House, after the majority and minority reports are brought in here, and finally the majority report will be endorsed by the majority supporting the Government in this House. Well, Mr. Speaker, what period of the year do you think we shall have reached then? We will have gone long past the time when the right hon. gentleman should have sailed for the Imperial Conference, and the country which at this moment expects us to be busy eliciting the facts as to the total amount of the railway deficit and the causes contributing to that deficit, and studying means for providing a remedy to prevent a recurrence of that deficit-the country that expects us to do that will by that time have become so disgusted with this Parliament that the force of public opinion will, I believe, drive these gentlemen to the polls no matter how disinclined they may be to face the electorate.
The situation has been referred to as a serious one. Of course it is. Nothing could be more serious than the railway situation that confronts us to-day. But how is it possible that there should fall from the lips of hon. gentlemen who pictured the gravity of the situation, the proposition that the time of this House and of a committee embodying a large number of members from every section of the House should be occupied in debating theories, in defining a principle, instead of going into matters in a businesslike way and ascertaining the facts. I am glad to see my hon.' friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) coming to his seat; he also expressed the hope that this committee would be composed of business men. In that remark I find an echo of some observations heard in this House a few days ago regarding the desirability of having business men and not lawyers on this committee or similar committees. Well, I may point out to my hon. friend from Oxford that a lawyer is the head of the most successful transportation system in this country, if not in the world. The president of the Canadian Pacific Railway is a lawyer; and I might also point out to my hon. friend and those who entertain this idea, that a business man has been the head of the institution that has made the mess we are called upon to deal with at the present time in connection with the Canadian National

Railway system. A lawyer is also the head of the great United States Steel Corporation, one of the best managed and most successful institutions in the world; while a business man made the terrible mess of the railway situation in the United States. I could go further in this connection, but it is unnecessary to extend the argument.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend might
proceed along that line, keeping in mind the speeches of his leader out in Western Canada.


Charles Murphy: True, I could proceed
along that line, but the further I went the worse would become the case for the Government; I have already made it bad enough. Now, Mr. Speaker, at this hour I do not intend to detain the House any longer. The Government, in effect, are resorting to a manoeuvre to rid themselves of a responsibility which is essentially theirs, and theirs alone. They propose to have a committee prescribe a line of procedure which they themselves, by their attitude in this House, have already made it plain to Parliament and to the country is their policy in regard to railway matters, and they are doing this so as to throw upon Parliament a responsibility, which, as I have already said, is the Gov-
12 m. ernment's alone and from which the electors of this country will not allow them to recede.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Will the hon. gentleman
allow me a question?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Was it not the late Laurier government that made, to use your own words, the greatest mess of the railway situation?


Charles Murphy: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before putting the
question, I must direct the attention of the House to the fact that a misprint appears in the last line of the second paragraph of the main motion, the word "and" having been inserted instead of the word "for" before the word "efficiency." I think this will be obvious on perusal.


Mr. ROBB:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Grey. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) Had I voted I would probably have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PROULX:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McDONALD:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Huron. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: I was paired with the hon. member for West Elgin. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Michael Clark: I was paired with the right hon. member for Kings, N.S. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McCURDY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was
paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BONNELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Alta.). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Before the main motion is put I should like to suggest to my right hon. friend the leader of the Government that the motion might well be enlarged in one particular, and I propose to offer an amendment to that effect. I will take only a minute or two in suggesting one or two reasons for it. One of the essential needs to final success in the operation of our national railways and merchant marine, is the complete establishment of confidence on the part of the public in the management and control of the enterprise, and I am bound to say that that confidence will, in large measure, depend upon the freedom from political influence of any kind with the proper administration of the system. Only in such a way also can complete efficiency in management be secured. Now under the present method of handling this matter, the appointment of the Board of Directors, and consequently the control of the management, lies in the hands of the Government. I am not here offering any criticism of the Government for the manner in which that responsibility has been discharged by them in the past, but nevertheless I wish to point out the fact that so long as that condition obtains, whether it is under the present Government or any Government that succeeds it, the possibility of that power being used by the Government of the day for political ends will be present in the minds of a great many people in this country, and it is very desirable, Sir, that it be removed if possible from them.
Now, I quite recognize the difficulty that confronts one in the consideration of this question. It has been said to-night that the people of Canada are the shareholders in this railway system, and that is absolutely and entirely true. At the same time they cannot discharge the functions that are ordinarily discharged by shareholders in a private corporation. On the other hand if the matter is left entirely in the control of the Government, the abuses that I have already referred to will arise as far as the election of directors are concerned and the appointment of the management. It seems to me therefore, Sir, that it would

be well if my right hon. friend who leads the Government would consent to an enlargement of the powers of this committee in one particular, and to that end-without any desire to keep the House sitting any longer because I trust I have made my position clear in the short statement I have made-I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) :
That the motion he amended by adding thereto as clause 5, the following words:
What aproximation, if any, consistent with the responsibility of Parliament in the matter, can be found to the appointment and the control of directors and management ordinarily exercised by shareholders in a private corporation.
I think this is a matter that might well engage the attention of the committee. If we are to reach any sound settlement of this very important question it must, I think, be found, if possible, along the lines I have indicated. I could extend my remarks and amplify the argument in favour of this amendment; but I do not wish to do so at this late hour; it would be a hardship on the House after we have spent so many hours to-day in debate. Therefore, I submit this amendment to my right hon. friend in the best of faith and with an honest desire to help, and I trust he may see his way clear to accept it.


William Stevens Fielding: Will you accept the
amendment?
Mr. MEIGHEN; I find myself in general agreement with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), Mr. Speaker, as regards the object that he has in view, and I am glad to say that I am able to give him another evidence that my argument was correct on the motion in chief, by assuring him that I am prepared to accept the amendment in wider terms than he puts it. Among the subjects to be deputed to the committee for inquiry he suggests:
What approximation, if any, consistent with the responsibility of Parliament in the matter can be found to the appointment and to the control of directors and management ordinarily exercised by shareholders in a private corporation.
What the hon. member has in mind, if I read his amendment correctly, is as to whether or not there might not be appointed in some way some body which would take the place usually occupied by shareholders in relation to a private concern. That is the suggestion the hon. member makes as to a possible improvement in the plan that Parliament has adopted for

*
the management of the system. I would suggest to him that it would be better to make it wider, so as to include not only any recommendation the committee might see fit to make along the line of his amendment, but along any line at all that the committee might feel would be a suggestion looking to the improvement of the general scheme of management. I intimated when the matter was first before the House, that that might be well submitted as a suitable subject for inquiry by the committee, and1 I know the hon. member will admit in a moment that if it is to be a subject for inquiry, while it should of course be definite, still keeping it definite it should be as wide as it can be made. If, for example, the committee should feel that the Board of Directors might be differently appointed, without establishing any body to take the place of shareholders, or if they might have any other recommendation that they saw fit after inquiry to make, that would enable Parliament to improve the general scheme of management of the system, it should be recommended. The plan now is to appoint, by the Government, a Board of Directors of business men, a president and general manager. If there is any better plan, whether it is along the line the hon. member suggests by his amendment or not, then if this committee can recommend it, it will be of advantage to this House.
I have re-drafted the amendment myself in these words, which I think cover the ground:
What, if any, improvement could he made in the general scheme of management.
That undoubtedly would enable the com-mitte, if they saw fit, to report in favour of just such a plan as the hon. member intimates is in his mind by the amendment that he moves, and it would enable the committee, if they thought there was anything better or anything additional to that, to recommend that as well. I am prepared to accept the amendment in that form. I do not think it would be put in the best shape just in the way it is submitted by the hon. member, first, because it is too confined, and, second because I do not know that the expression means in the ultimate just exactly what the hon member intended it to mean.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has, of course, exhausted his right to speak, but I am sure that under the circumstances the House will

accord him the indulgence of stating whether or not he will accept the substitution suggested by the Prime Minister.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the House in extending to me this privilege. I must confess at once that I have not the definiteness and ability in drafting amendments that my right hon. friend the leader of the Government has. Nevertheless, with the statement he has made and the suggestion he has also made for the change in the wording of my amendment, I am quite willing to agtee. The main purpose I had in bringing it forward was, if possible, to get some consideration by this committee of this important matter. The change my right hon. friend has made, accompanied by his statement that it would be even broader in its application than the amendment I submitted, is entirely satisfactory to me and I am quite willing that his suggested amendment shall be substituted for mine.


Arthur Meighen: The words should appear, Mr. Speaker, after the word "continued" in the first line of clause 4. That is where the clause really ends; the rest of the motion applies to all the foregoing clauses.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that "5" had better take the place of "4" and then that "4" be changed to "5"?


Arthur Meighen: That is quite satisfactory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the resolution of my right hon. friend related primarily to discovering the methods whereby information could be given to Parliament in respect to the management, control and operation of these National railways. The amendment which is now proposed has to do not so much with the question of information, which is the one that we have been discussing throughout the day, as it has with considering a different method of control and management. As such, it seems to me that it introduces an entirely new subject for the consideration of the committee.
I have already pointed out that I thought the object of the Government in instituting the committee was to get away entirely from the question of disclosing information as fully as this House wishes to have it, and to substitute a series of other questions for the committee to consider. This
amendment adds just one more to the list. Much more time of the committee will now be taken up in considering questions of management and control, and we shall probably be put off further than ever from getting the information which we wish to receive. On the other hand, if there is going to be a committee I suppose there is no harm in referring to it any number of questions. The subject dealt with in the amendment now proposed is an important one, which might well be debated in Parliament at any time. But if the reference of one additional question to the committee will have the effect of assisting the Government to discover a policy for itself, I for one have no objection to its addition. At the same time, I should say that the committee as a whole is not acceptable to us on this side of the House, because it is not a committee with power to get full information and to get it at once, but is rather, as I have already stated, a committee for the purpose of engaging in studies of an academic character. While I do not think the, proposed committee will meet the purposes which we have in view, there is not enough objection to the reference to it of the additional question to warrant our asking the House to divide on the amendment.


Frank S. Cahill: Before this amendment
is adopted I should like to say a word. It would seem from the discussion to-night that this resolution as drafted is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the situation. Would it not be possible for the leader of the Government to have the House moved into Committee of Supply on a given date in order that we may discuss this question and determine just what should be submitted to the proposed committee? I make this simply as a suggestion. I am satisfied that the Government will find themselves in great difficulties even after this proposed committee is appointed, but not nearly in as great difficulties as those with which the country will find itself confronted. We are all looking for a solution of this question. Hon. members opposite accuse the Opposition of playing politics, but certainly hon. gentlemen on this side have had no hand in the playing of politics in regard to these railways. It is the earnest desire of every member of the Opposition, I am sure, to find a solution. It is quite apparent that if this resolution is amended at the eleventh hour-which is after twelve o'clock-it will still be not capable of meeting the conditions. I think the Prime Minister should consider some method of arriving at a com-

mittee that would have complete power to handle this whole question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Crerar moves in
amendment, seconded by Mr. Clark (Red Deer), that the following be inserted as clause 4:
4.	What if any improvement could he made in the general scheme of management.
And that the present clause 4 of the resolution be made clause 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Crerar) agreed to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the main motion as amended?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried on
division.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Meighen moves,
seconded by Sir Henry Drayton:
That a Select Standing Committee on National Railways and Shipping be appointed for the present session, and be instructed to inquire into the following questions:-
(1)	What information as to operations of Canadian National Railways and Shipping as conducted by the Board of Directors and Management should, in the public interest, be brought down in Parliament on Question, Motion for Production of Papers, or otherwise.
(2)	When, by what method, and under what conditions, if any, should such information be given, regard being had for the necessity of securing to Parliament and the public all facts requisite for the determination of policy (including finance), and to the Board of Directors the best possible conditions for efficiency of management.
(3)	What system of auditing should be adopted, and what extent of detail should be given in the Annual Report
4.	What if any improvement could be made in the general scheme of management.
5.	Whether and for what purposes the said committee should be continued, and that for the above purposes and for such other purposes as the committee deem in the public interest there be referred to said1 committee the Annual Report of the Board of Directors and that the said committee have power to examine witnesses under oath, to send for papers, persons, and records, and to report from time to time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 45, from the Senate, for the relief of William Henry Coulson.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 46, from the Senate, for the relief of Elizabeth Alexander.-Mr. Douglas, (Strathcona).
Bill No. 47, from the Senate, for the relief of William Gleaves Doyle.-Mr. Best.
Bill No. 49, from the Senate, for the relief of Dorothy Mearuel Score.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 50, from the Senate, for the relief of Henry William Maynard.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 51, from the Senate, for the relief of George Elmor Glossop.-Mr. Copp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31, an Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Mew-burn.
Bill No. 32, an Act to incorporate The Canadian Transit Company.-Mr. Kennedy (Essex).
Bill No. 8, an Act respecting The James MacLaren Company.-Mr. Fontaine.
Bill No. 58, from the Senate, for the relief of Hazel Galbraith.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 48, from the Senate, for the relief of William John Bell.-Mr. Tudhope.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, the House adjourned at 1 a.m, Saturday.

[Stage Direction]
The statement referred to at page 1755 as ordered to be published in the Debates is given herewith. The statement is accompanied by the following letter:
Toronto, April 7, 1921.
Dear Dr. Reid :-Referring to my letter of yesterday's date, enclosing answers to questions asked in the House by Hon. Mr. Murphy, relative to wages paid on the Canadian Rational railways.
You will note answer to Question No. 4, showing the monthly earnings paid to certain classes of employees, is based on the regular working hours, but in order to show the effect of the overtime conditions, I am enclosing herewith a memorandum, in duplicate, giving total earnings of twelve agent-operators at different points on the eastern lines of Canadian Northern railway for the years 1916-20, which you may wish to add to our answer to Question No. 4.
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
The Honourable J. D. Reid,	Vice-President.
Minister of Railways & Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.
Question 4 of the series asked by Hon. Charles Murphy (Russell) on 7th instant, is as follows:
4.	"What are the monthly earnings as compared with 1916 for the following classes of employees working full regular working hours:-Shop Mechanics, Carmen, Agents and Operators, Freight Shed Men, Trackmen, Bridge and Building Men?
The statements given in answer to the series of questions, including the No. 4 above, will be found appended to the Debates of 7th instant. The supplementary statement ordered to be published in the present issue follows:	.
Question 4-
Memorandum
The earnings per month shown for the various classes of employees are exclusive of overtime for emergency service. We are, however, showing below a state-inent prepared for the years 1916 and 1920 showing the total earnings of 12 agents, which will show that the total earnings are greatly affected by overtime conditions. We would, however, point out the stations referred to were some of the stations where the highest amount of overtime had been paid, and does not mean that every station would be affected the same way, as far as the individual earnings are concerned, as at points where it is found more economical to add an extra operator it is done, rather than pay overtime. However, the expense to the Railway is practically the same whether it is paid in overtime or for additional staff, due to the eighthourday. The earnings shown below would be further increased through the application of Decision No. 2 of the United States Railway Labour Board dated
liilir 911+h 1 OOfl	J
Position
Day Operator..
Agent	
Agent-Operator Agent-Operator Agent-Operator, Agent-Operator, Agent-Operator. Agent-Operator. Agent-Operator. Agent-Operator. Agent-Operator. Agent-Operator.
Location	Amount Earned	Average Monthly Rate	Schedule Rate 1916	Schedule Rate 1920	1916	1920	1916	1920	January to April	May to Dec.	January to April	May to Dee.Capreol	891-82	2,656-91	74-32	221-41	62-50	70-00	140-00	170-00Parry Sound	-	1,16000	2,348-21	96-67	195-68	90-00	100-00	165-00	192-00Washago	936-56	1,767-43	78-05	147-29	63-00	67-00	113-00	125-00Deer Lake	916-00	2,238-76	76-33	186-56	64-00	70-00	125-00	149-00Key Jet	1,397-51	2,094-14	116-46	174-51	64-00	68-00	125-00	149-001 orrance	1,022-11	2-502-56	85-18	208-55	63-00	68-00	113-00	139-00Udney	1,010-73	2,406-31	84-23	200-53	63-00	67-00	113-00	138-00Beaverton	1,234-79	2,964-53	102-90	247-04	70-00	77-00	130-00	160-00Pefferlaw	990-16	1,999-33	82-51	166-61	63-00	68-00	111-00	136-00Orono	842-70	2,182-84	70-23	181-90	68-00	73-00	125-00	158-00Brighton	1,035-83	2,880-46	86-32	240-04	68-00	73-00	125-00	149-00V arker	1,053-35	2,262-73	87-78	188-56	65-00	75-00	150-00	180-00
, /
1816	COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 11, 1921.